[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
LIFT AMERICA: REVITALIZING OUR NATION'S INFRASTRUCTURE AND ECONOMY
=======================================================================
VIRTUAL HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 22, 2021
__________
Serial No. 117-15
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Published for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
energycommerce.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
46-458 PDF WASHINGTON : 2022
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Chairman
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
ANNA G. ESHOO, California Ranking Member
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado FRED UPTON, Michigan
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
DORIS O. MATSUI, California BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
KATHY CASTOR, Florida DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
JERRY McNERNEY, California H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
PAUL TONKO, New York BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York BILLY LONG, Missouri
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
TONY CARDENAS, California MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
RAUL RUIZ, California RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
SCOTT H. PETERS, California TIM WALBERG, Michigan
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois, Vice NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
Chair JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California DEBBBIE LESKO, Arizona
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia GREG PENCE, Indiana
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware DAN CRENSHAW, Texas
DARREN SOTO, Florida JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
KATHLEEN M. RICE, New York
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
KIM SCHRIER, Washington
LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
------
Professional Staff
JEFFREY C. CARROLL, Staff Director
TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Deputy Staff Director
NATE HODSON, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 2
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Washington, opening statement..................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Hon. Brett Guthrie, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Kentucky, prepared statement................... 7
Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Illinois, opening statement................................. 8
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Hon. Anna G. Eshoo, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, opening statement............................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Hon. Mike Doyle, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, opening statement................ 9
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of
New York, opening statement.................................... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 10
Hon. Robert E. Latta, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Ohio, opening statement..................................... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Hon. David B. McKinley, a Representative in Congress from the
State of West Virginia, opening statement...................... 12
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Witnesses
Ernest J. Moniz, Ph.D., President and Chief Executive Officer,
Energy Futures Initiative, and Former Secretary, Department of
Energy......................................................... 14
Prepared statement........................................... 17
Tom Frieden, M.D., President and Chief Executive Officer, Resolve
to Save Lives, and Former Director, Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention................................................. 47
Prepared statement........................................... 49
Answers to submitted questions............................... 208
Michael P. O'Rielly, Principal, MPORielly Consulting, LLC,
Visiting Fellow, Hudson Institute, and Former Commissioner,
Federal Communications Commission.............................. 68
Prepared statement........................................... 70
Tom Wheeler, Visiting Fellow, Brookings Institution, Senior
Fellow, Harvard Kennedy School, and Former Chairman, Federal
Communications Commission...................................... 73
Prepared statement........................................... 75
Submitted Material
H.R. 1848, the Leading Infrastructure for Tomorrow's America Act,
submitted by Mr. Pallone\1\
----------
\1\ The legislation has been retained in committee files and is
available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF00/20210322/111362/
BILLS-1171848ih.pdf.
Letter of March 22, 2021, from Diane VanDe Hei, Chief Executive
Officer, Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, to Mr.
Pallone, et al., submitted by Mr. Pallone...................... 165
Letter of March 19, 2021, from Erin Morton, Executive Director,
Coalition for Health Funding, to Mr. Pallone and Mrs. Rodgers,
submitted by Mr. Pallone....................................... 171
Letter of March 19, 2021, from Tom Van Coverden, President and
Chief Executive Officer, National Association of Community
Health Centers, to Mr. Pallone, submitted by Mr. Pallone....... 173
Article of March 19, 2021, ``Brain-damaging lead found in tap
water from most Illinois communities during the past 6 years,
Tribune analysis finds,'' by Michael Hawthorne, Chicago
Tribune, submitted by Mr. Rush................................. 175
Letter of March 21, 2021, from Daniel A. Lashof, U.S. Director,
World Resources Institute, to Mr. Pallone, submitted by Mr.
Pallone........................................................ 183
Letter of March 22, 2021, from the Public Safety Next Generation
9-1-1 Coalition to Mr. Pallone and Mrs. Rodgers, submitted by
Mr. Pallone.................................................... 184
Statement of America's Essential Hospitals, March 22, 2021,
submitted by Mr. Pallone....................................... 185
Letter of March 22, 2021, from Jonathan Spalter, President and
Chief Executive Officer, USTelecom, to Mr. Pallone and Mrs.
Rodgers, submitted by Mr. Pallone.............................. 188
Letter of March 21, 2021, from Tom Neltner, Chemicals Policy
Director, Environmental Defense Fund, to Mr. Pallone and Mrs.
Rodgers, submitted by Mr. Pallone.............................. 190
Statement of the American Nurses Association, March 22, 2021,
submitted by Mr. Pallone....................................... 191
Statement of the American Clinical Laboratory Association, March
22, 2021, submitted by Mr. Pallone............................. 193
Letter of March 19, 2021, from Maria Jacques, President, National
Association of State 911 Administrators, et al., to Mr.
Pallone, et al., submitted by Mr. Pallone...................... 195
Letter of March 19, 2021, from George Lowe, Vice President,
Governmental Affairs and Public Policy, American Gas
Association, to Mr. Pallone and Mrs. Rodgers, submitted by Mrs.
Rodgers........................................................ 201
Letter of March 4, 2021, from Senator Michael F. Bennet, et al.,
to Tom Vilsack, Secretary, Department of Agriculture, et al.,
submitted by Miss Rice......................................... 203
Letter of March 22, 2021, from J. David Grossman, Executive
Director, GPS Innovation Alliance, and David Logsdon, Senior
Director, Public Sector, CompTIA, to Mr. Pallone and Mrs.
Rodgers, submitted by Mrs. Rodgers............................. 206
LIFT AMERICA: REVITALIZING OUR NATION'S INFRASTRUCTURE AND ECONOMY
----------
MONDAY, MARCH 22, 2021
House of Representatives,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 11:01 a.m., via
Cisco Webex online video conferencing, Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Pallone, Rush, Eshoo,
DeGette, Doyle, Schakowsky, Butterfield, Matsui, Castor,
Sarbanes, McNerney, Welch, Tonko, Clarke, Schrader, Cardenas,
Ruiz, Peters, Dingell, Kuster, Kelly, Barragan, Blunt
Rochester, Soto, O'Halleran, Rice, Craig, Schrier, Trahan,
Fletcher, Rodgers (committee ranking member), Burgess, Latta,
Guthrie, McKinley, Griffith, Bilirakis, Johnson, Long, Bucshon,
Hudson, Walberg, Carter, Palmer, Dunn, Curtis, Lesko, Pence,
Crenshaw, Joyce, and Armstrong.
Staff present: Billy Benjamin, Systems Administrator;
Jacquelyn Bolen, Health Counsel; Jeffrey C. Carroll, Staff
Director; Jacqueline Cohen, Chief Environment Counsel; Parul
Desai, FCC Detailee; Jennifer Epperson, Counsel; Adam Fischer,
Professional Staff Member; Waverly Gordon, General Counsel;
Tiffany Guarascio, Deputy Staff Director; Anthony Gutierrez,
Professional Staff Member; Caitlin Haberman, Professional Staff
Member; Perry Hamilton, Clerk; Anne Marie Hirschberger, FERC
Detailee; Alex Hoehn-Saric, Chief Counsel, Communications and
Consumer Protection; James Johnson, Policy Coordinator; Zach
Kahan, Deputy Director, Outreach and Member Service; Rick
Kessler, Senior Advisor and Staff Director, Energy and
Environment; Mackenzie Kuhl, Digital Assistant; Brendan Larkin,
Policy Coordinator; Dustin J. Maghamfar, Air and Climate
Counsel; Aisling McDonough, Policy Coordinator; Dan Miller,
Professional Staff Member; Elysa Montfort, Press Secretary;
Meghan Mullon, Policy Analyst; Joe Orlando, Policy Analyst;
Lino Pena-Martinez, Policy Analyst; Kaitlyn Peel, Digital
Director; Tim Robinson, Chief Counsel; Chloe Rodriguez, Clerk;
Nikki Roy, Policy Coordinator; Andrew Souvall, Director of
Communications, Outreach, and Member Services; Medha Surampudy,
Professional Staff Member; Terry Sydney, Policy Coordinator;
Rebecca Tomilchik, Policy Analyst; Kimberlee Trzeciak, Chief
Health Advisor; Tuley Wright, Senior Energy and Environment
Policy Advisor; David Brodian, Minority Detailee,
Communications and Technology; Sarah Burke, Minority Deputy
Staff Director; Michael Cameron, Minority Policy Analyst,
Consumer Protection and Commerce, Energy, Environment; Jerry
Couri, Minority Deputy Chief Counsel for Environment; Diane
Cutler, Minority Detailee, Oversight and Investigations;
William Clutterbuck, Minority Staff Assistant; Theresa Gambo,
Minority Financial and Office Administrator; Marissa Gervasi,
Minority Counsel, Oversight and Investigations; Grace Graham,
Minority Chief Counsel, Health; Caleb Graff, Minority Deputy
Chief Counsel, Health; Brittany Havens, Minority Professional
Staff Member, Oversight and Investigations; Jack Heretik,
Minority Press Secretary; Nate Hodson, Minority Staff Director;
Sean Kelly, Minority Press Secretary; Peter Kielty, Minority
General Counsel; Emily King, Minority Member Services Director;
Bijan Koohmaraie, Minority Chief Counsel; Tim Kurth, Minority
Chief Counsel, Consumer Protection and Commerce; Mary Martin,
Minority Chief Counsel, Energy and Environment; Brandon Mooney,
Minority Deputy Chief Counsel for Energy; Kate O'Connor,
Minority Chief Counsel, Communications and Technology; Clare
Paoletta, Minority Policy Analyst, Health; Brannon Rains,
Minority Professional Staff Member, Consumer Protection and
Commerce; Kristin Seum, Minority Counsel, Health; Kristen
Shatynski, Minority Professional Staff Member, Health; Olivia
Shields, Minority Communications Director; Alan Slobodin,
Minority Chief Investigative Counsel, Oversight and
Investigations; Peter Spencer, Minority Senior Professional
Staff Member, Energy; Michael Taggart, Minority Policy
Director; Evan Viau, Minority Professional Staff Member,
Communications and Technology; and Everett Winnick, Minority
Director of Information Technology.
Mr. Pallone. The Committee on Energy and Commerce will now
come to order. And today, the committee is holding a hearing
entitled ``LIFT America: Revitalizing our Nation's
Infrastructure and Economy.'' And, of course, due to the COVID-
19 public health emergency, today's hearing is being held
remotely. All Members and witnesses will be participating via
videoconferencing. And as part of our hearing, microphones will
be set on mute for purposes of eliminating inadvertent
background noise. Members and witnesses will need to unmute
their microphones each time they wish to speak. Documents for
the record can be sent to Rebecca Tomilchik at the email
address we provided to staff, and all documents will be entered
into the record at the conclusion of the hearing.
So I am going to start by recognizing myself for 5 minutes
for an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
And as I said, today we begin the process of rebuilding and
revitalizing our economy by modernizing our Nation's
infrastructure. Over the last year, we have seen the
devastating results of inaction: major power outages, water
disruptions, healthcare facilities stretched to the limit, and
communities left behind due to the digital divide.
The LIFT America Act, which was introduced last week by all
32 committee Democrats, will help build back a better economy.
It invests a total of $312 billion in clean and efficient
energy, safe drinking water, expanded access to broadband,
brownfields cleanup, and improving our Nation's healthcare
infrastructure. This legislation will serve as the blueprint
moving forward, and it provides us an opportunity to work
together in a bipartisan fashion to deliver a robust and
comprehensive infrastructure package. And I am hopeful that we
can work together to find bipartisan solutions.
So I want to stress--and I said this to our ranking
member--I mean, this is a beginning, you know. We introduced
this as Democrats, but we would like to have Republican input
into this, you know, before anything moves forward. And there
are a lot of bipartisan provisions included in the overall bill
in, you know, measures that were introduced by Republicans, so
the bill itself does have a number of Republicans initiatives
in it.
But be that as it may, we look at this as a work in
progress. The LIFT America Act will help us combat the climate
crisis by investing more than $69 billion in clean energy and
energy efficiency. We include funding to modernize our electric
grid to accommodate more renewable energy and make it more
resilient, funding to help rapidly deploy new technologies
aimed at reducing emissions, and funding for energy efficiency.
And, you know, we worked a lot on energy efficiency and
resiliency in that energy package, a lot of which was included
in the omnibus at the end of the year.
We also invest more than $41 billion in the deployment of
electric vehicle infrastructure, including $12.5 billion to
accelerate domestic manufacturing of batteries, power
electronics, and other technologies for use in plug-in
vehicles. Collectively, these investments will help us take an
important step in combating the climate crisis while also
rebuilding our economy, creating good-paying jobs, and
providing much-needed relief to consumers on their energy
bills.
We also invest more than $51 billion to protect Americans'
drinking water. The legislation extends and increases funding
for the State Revolving Loan Fund and other safe water programs
targeting lead service lines, water systems resiliency, and
water systems security. We also established a new $2.5 billion
grant program to help filter toxic PFAS chemicals, or forever
chemicals, out of water supplies in affected communities and
ensure that water systems in U.S. territories will have access
to resources they need.
We also further fund the Brownfields Program, which has
successfully helped communities, including many environmental
justice communities, clean up contaminated sites, remove public
health threats, and prepare the sites for development.
And the LIFT America Act also makes significant investments
in the expansion of broadband internet services. We invest $80
billion for the deployment of secure and resilient high-speed
broadband. And this allows for 100 percent of broadband
deployment across the country, closing the digital divide. Over
the last year, we have seen how essential internet connectivity
is, and this investment will lead to stronger small businesses
and more jobs.
And the legislation also invests $15 billion for the
implementation of Next Generation 9-1-1 services that allow
callers to send text messages, images, or videos to 9-1-1 in
times of emergency. Again, very much a bipartisan initiative.
And there is $9.3 billion for broadband affordability and
adoption to ensure that everyone can afford internet services.
And, finally, the LIFT America Act invests $30 billion in
our Nation's health infrastructure. The COVID-19 pandemic has
exposed an alarming number of preexisting weaknesses in our
Nation's healthcare infrastructure, and the pandemic has also
stretched our health infrastructure to the breaking point. And
this funding will be used to upgrade hospitals and community
health centers, improve clinical laboratory infrastructure,
support the Indian Health Service, and increase the overall
capacity for community-based care in America.
So I don't think there is any better way to stimulate the
economy for the future than to modernize our badly aging
infrastructure, and I obviously want to work on this together
as much as we can over the next few weeks.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.
Today, we begin the process of rebuilding and revitalizing
our economy by modernizing our Nation's infrastructure. Over
the last year, we've seen the devastating results of inaction:
major power outages, water disruptions, healthcare facilities
stretched to the limit, and communities left behind due to the
digital divide.
The LIFT America Act, which was introduced last week by all
32 committee Democrats, will help build back a better economy.
It invests a total of $312 billion in clean and efficient
energy, safe drinking water, expanded access to broadband,
Brownfield cleanups, and improving our Nation's healthcare
infrastructure.
This legislation will serve as the blueprint moving
forward, and it provides us an opportunity to work together in
bipartisan fashion to deliver a robust and comprehensive
infrastructure package. I'm hopeful that we can work together
to find bipartisan solutions--after all, there are a lot of
bipartisan provisions included in this overall bill.
The LIFT America Act will help us combat the climate crisis
by investing more than $69 billion in clean energy and energy
efficiency. We include funding to modernize our electric grid
to accommodate more renewable energy and make it more
resilient, funding to help rapidly deploy new technologies
aimed at reducing emissions, and funding for energy efficiency.
We also invest more than $41 billion in the deployment of
electric vehicle infrastructure, including $12.5 billion to
accelerate domestic manufacturing of batteries, power
electronics, and other technologies for use in plug-in
vehicles.
Collectively, these investments will help us take an
important step in combating the climate crisis, while also
rebuilding our economy, creating good-paying jobs and providing
much needed relief to consumers on their energy bills.
We also invest more than $51 billion to protect Americans'
drinking water. The legislation extends and increases funding
for the State Revolving Loan Fund and other safe water programs
targeting lead service lines, water system resiliency, and
water system security. We also establish a new $2.5 billion
grant program to help filter toxic PFAS chemicals, or forever
chemicals, out of water supplies in effected communities and
ensure that water systems in U.S. territories will have access
to the resources they need.
We also further fund the Brownfields Program, which has
successfully helped communities, including many environmental
justice communities, clean up contaminated sites, remove public
health threats, and prepare the sites for development.
The LIFT America Act also makes significant investments in
the expansion of broadband internet access. We invest $80
billion for the deployment of secure and resilient high-speed
broadband that will expand access nationwide. This major
investment will allow for 100 percent broadband deployment
across the country, closing the digital divide. Over the last
year we've seen how essential internet connectivity is, and
this investment will lead to stronger small businesses, more
jobs and revitalized economies in communities that have simply
been left behind for far too long.
The legislation also invests $15 billion for the
implementation of Next Generation 9-1-1 services that allow
callers to send text messages, images, or videos to 9-1-1 in
times of emergency.
We also include $9.3 billion for broadband affordability
and adoption to ensure that everyone can afford internet
services and have the knowledge and tools to use the internet
to meet their needs.
Finally, the LIFT America Act invests $30 billion in our
Nation's health infrastructure. The COVID-19 pandemic has
exposed an alarming number of pre-existing weaknesses in our
Nation's healthcare infrastructure. The pandemic has also
stretched our health infrastructure to the breaking point. This
funding will be used to upgrade hospitals and community health
centers, improve clinical laboratory infrastructure, support
the Indian Health Service, and increase the overall capacity
for community-based care in America.
There is no better way to stimulate our economy for the
future than to modernize our badly aging infrastructure. I
encourage my Republican colleagues to join us in this pursuit
to revitalize our economy, create millions of new jobs, combat
climate change, and ensure no community is left behind. Let's
get to work.
Mr. Pallone. So, with that, I will yield back, and I will
recognize Mrs. Rodgers, the ranking member of the committee,
for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mrs. Rodgers. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, and
to all my colleagues, I will start by reflecting on what life
was like before the pandemic. Just over a year ago, our economy
was booming. It was the hottest job market in half a century
after a decade of people asking ``Where are the jobs?,'' wages
were rising. More jobs were available than people looking for
work. People were coming off the sidelines. More people,
including a record number of women and people with
disabilities, were coming off the sidelines. This economic boom
was driven by lifting the regulatory burden as opposed to more
government mandates and requirements. As a result, there was
optimism again. People were hopeful, not fearful.
Today, we should be leading to replicate this success. The
hard-working people of this country are anxious for the days
when we had hope and optimism driven by jobs, which brings me
to this Progressive wish list which is before us today. It is
the complete opposite of what will deliver results. It is more
regulations and mandates and less freedom to innovate and
create jobs.
The LIFT Act was first introduced in 2017 with a price tag
of $85 billion. Today, it is a whopping $300 billion for the
Government to regulate the cars we drive and how we heat our
homes and businesses. This is not the American way. It is
another example of how Speaker Pelosi wants to take us back to
the Dark Ages, rolling blackouts, uncertainty as to whether the
lights will come on when we turn on a light switch, people
having to buy generators to ensure heat in their homes.
The LIFT Act will hurt our energy security, affordability,
and reliability. It establishes a multibillion-dollar slush
fund for the Green New Deal to subsidize the left's mission to
nationalize California's downfall. It fails to include
solutions Republicans are focused on to secure cleaner American
energy, to unleash private investment, and remove barriers for
new energy infrastructure and natural gas pipelines, nuclear
licensing, and clean, renewable hydropower.
On broadband infrastructure, I will leave it to former FCC
Commissioner Michael O'Rielly to explain how this bill wastes
billions without actually closing the digital divide and even
setting rural America back further.
Overall, I hope that we can have an honest debate on how
this bill forces a regulatory regime and higher costs on
Americans who have struggled enough in the worst economic
crisis in our lifetime. For our economy to boom again, we
should be lifting the regulatory burden. If the majority is
sincere about turning this partisan bill bipartisan, we stand
ready to engage. We are bringing solutions to the table to
secure our clean energy future and boost broadband
connectivity. I would offer I am ready. We should be working
together rather than holding these virtual hearings where we
are all guilty of just making our own points and not listening.
I long for the day when we can work to counter the forces that
keep us from building trust, better relationships, and workable
solutions. May this committee lead something new and lead the
way. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Rodgers follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers
Good morning.
I'll start by reminding everyone of what life was like
before the pandemic. Our economy was booming. It was the
hottest job market in half a century.
After a decade of people asking, ``where are the jobs?...''
wages were rising, more jobs were available than people looking
for work, and women drove the labor force comeback.
More people--including a record number of people with
disabilities--were coming off the sidelines. This was because
we lifted the regulatory burden.
Despite Speaker Pelosi's best efforts to protect the status
quo, Republicans delivered on our promises. As a result, there
was optimism again in America.
Today, we should be leading to replicate this success. The
hardworking people of this country are anxious for those days
to return, to reopen, get back to work, and provide for their
families
Which brings me to the Progressive wish list before us
today. It's the complete opposite of what we know will deliver
results. It's more regulations and mandates, and less freedom
to innovate and create jobs.
The LIFT Act was first introduced in 2017 with a price tag
of $85 billion. Today, it's a whopping $300 billion for the
Government to regulate the cars we drive and how we heat our
homes and businesses.
This is not the American way. It's another example of how
Speaker Pelosi wants to take us back to the Dark Ages.
The LIFT Act will hurt our energy security, affordability,
and reliability. It establishes a multibillion-dollar slush
fund for the Green New Deal to subsidize the Left's mission to
nationalize California's downfall.
It fails to include solutions Republicans are focused on to
Secure Cleaner American Energy. To unleash private investment
and remove regulatory barriers for new energy infrastructure in
natural gas pipelines, nuclear licensing, and clean, renewable
hydropower.
On broadband infrastructure, I'll leave it to Former FCC
Commissioner Michael O'Rielly to explain how the Majority is
preparing to waste billions without actually closing the
digital divide and even setting rural America back even
further.
Overall, I hope we can have an honest debate on what this
bill is about. It forces a new regulatory regime and higher
costs on Americans who have already struggled for survival in
the worst economic crisis we've seen in our lifetime.
For their sake, to quote ``build back better,'' we should
be lifting the regulatory burden. If the Majority is sincere in
wanting to turn this partisan bill bipartisan, we stand ready
to engage in good faith.
Energy and Commerce Republicans have already introduced
several packages of bills to do just that, securing our clean
energy future and boosting broadband connectivity.
That's how we ensure our economy booms again.
Thank you.
Mrs. Rodgers. And I am going to yield the remainder of my
time to whoever----
Mr. Guthrie. Brett Guthrie.
Mrs. Rodgers. Brett Guthrie. Sorry about that.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Ranking Member Republican Leader. I
want to thank you for yielding.
In order for lessons to be learned from this pandemic on
how to strengthen our public health infrastructure, it would be
a wasted opportunity not to examine what areas need improvement
after being tested from the pandemic of a century and finding
solutions to enhance our public health infrastructure. I am
pleased the chairman has said that we want to work together
with these bills that have been put forward, as he said, from
the Democrat perspective.
The current text of the bill is essentially copied and
pasted from a 2019 bill. And since the 2019 bill was filed,
Congress has provided billions and billions of dollars because
of the pandemic in discretionary spending and even more in
mandatory spending for States, Federal, and local public health
projects. This includes workforce data systems, lab equipment,
and some of which we will still spend more than--the moneys 2
years more from now to be spent, according to the CBO. We do
need to work together not to authorize duplicate streams of
funding but to identify what we need to do as we move forward.
I appreciate the gentlelady for yielding, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Guthrie follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Brett Guthrie
Thank you for yielding. There are a lot of lessons to be
learned from this pandemic on how to strengthen our public
health infrastructure. It would be a wasted opportunity to not
examine what areas need improvement after being tested from the
pandemic of a century and finding solutions to enhance our
public health infrastructure. I would like to work together
with the majority on well thought out policies.
That's why I am so disappointed the majority put forward
bill text on the public health side that was essentially copied
and pasted from a 2019 bill. It's unacceptable--and quite
frankly lazy--to take this nearly recycled text from before the
COVID-19 pandemic and just bump up the funding numbers. My
constituents sent me here to be a thoughtful steward of their
hard-earned taxpayer money, and the legislation before us flies
in the face of that. Congress has provided billions and
billions of dollars in discretionary spending and even more in
mandatory spending toward Federal, State, and local public
health infrastructure projects. This includes workforce, data
systems, and laboratory equipment, some of which will still be
spent more than two years from now according to CBO. And yet
the Democrats want to authorize duplicative streams of funding
for nearly identical initiatives, without even bothering to
truly understand the need.
We have some time until the COVID-19 money has been fully
obligated and spent. This luxury of time will allow us to work
together to assess where the gaps are and what will be
necessary to maintain the systems we need in a sustainable way.
I urge my counterparts to work with us to better understand the
needs of our State and local health departments instead of
``checking a box'' and throwing money at a problem. We must do
better than that so we are more prepared for future public
health emergencies.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
So what we are going to do now is allocate 5 minutes to
each side before we go to our witnesses. And so the Democrats
divided it amongst the chairs of jurisdiction. They will get 1
minute each, and then I believe that the Republicans have
divided it between two, so they will get like 2\1/2\ minutes
each.
So, with that, I am going to go through the Democratic 5
minutes and recognize first Mr. Rush, chairman of the
Subcommittee on Energy. But each of you guys only have 1
minute.
Mr. Rush.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Rush. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to
begin by thanking you for your tenacious leadership in
introducing the Leading Infrastructure for Tomorrow's America
Act, the LIFT Act. And as chairman of the Energy Subcommittee,
this important bill is the top priority for me, especially
considering the bill's strong support from all 32 committee
members on the Democratic side.
The LIFT America Act makes critical investments to combat
the climate crisis, expand broadband internet access, and
revitalize America's lagging healthcare infrastructure. This
bill also makes a serious and sizable investment to modernize
our grid after recent grid failures, improve energy efficiency,
and rejuvenate our communities, all while driving job creation.
Much-needed investment in these areas will support our Nation
in building back better, a top priority----
Mr. Pallone. Bobby, I have got to interrupt you. Otherwise,
the others aren't going to have a chance.
Mr. Rush. I yield the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rush follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bobby L. Rush
Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by thanking you for
your tenacious leadership in introducing the Leading
Infrastructure for Tomorrow's America Act. As the Chairman of
the Energy Subcommittee, this important bill is a top priority
for me, especially considering the bill's strong support from
all 32 Democratic Committee members.
The LIFT America Act makes critical investments to combat
the climate crisis, expand broadband internet access, and
revitalize America's aging healthcare infrastructure. This bill
also makes a serious and sizeable investment to modernize our
grid after recent grid failures, improve energy efficiency, and
rejuvenate our communities, all while driving job creation.
Much-needed investments in these key areas will support
this Nation in building back better--a top priority for both
this body and the communities we serve.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Pallone. All right. Thank you. Next, we are going to go
to Chairwoman Eshoo.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ANNA G. ESHOO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. Eshoo. Good morning, colleagues. Over the past year,
our country has really undergone profound changes because of
COVID-19, and it has laid bare a glaring shortcoming that our
Nation's public health infrastructure is outdated and
unprepared for crisis.
Today's legislation invests over $36 billion to renovate
and modernize public health departments, local hospitals,
community health centers, the Indian Health Service, and the
public health labs. The bill rebuilds our health system after a
year from hell.
As chairwoman of the Health Subcommittee, I am proud that
the legislation counteracts our Nation's chronic underfunding
of public health and closes the disparities in public health
infrastructure and data systems between regions and the IHS.
I am very pleased that two of my bills are included, one
that will upgrade thousands of legacy call centers, emergency
call centers, and the other protects municipal broadband, which
expands access to broadband and offers higher speeds at lower
prices. This would really be a vitamin B shot in the arm.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Anna G. Eshoo
Over the past year our country has undergone profound
changes due to COVID-19 which has laid bare a glaring
shortcoming that our Nation's public health infrastructure is
outdated and unprepared for crisis.
Today's legislation invests over $36 billion to renovate
and modernize public health departments, local hospitals,
community health centers, the Indian Health Services and public
health labs.
The bill rebuilds our health system after a year from hell.
As chairwoman of the Health Subcommittee, I'm proud that
the legislation counteracts our Nation's chronic underfunding
of public health and closes the disparities in public health
infrastructure and data systems between regions and the IHS.
I'm very pleased that two of my telecom bills are included.
The Next Generation 9-1-1 Act provides $15 billion to upgrade
thousands of legacy call centers, and the Community Broadband
Act protects municipal broadband which expands access to
broadband and offers higher speeds at lower prices.
Mr. Pallone. Anna, I am going to have to interrupt you too.
Ms. Eshoo. I yield back.
Mr. Pallone. All right.
Next, we have Mr. Doyle.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE DOYLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding the
hearing. The LIFT America Act is a transformational investment
in the future of our Nation. We have been talking about closing
the digital divide for as long as I have been on this
committee. For far too many Americans, broadband is
unavailable, too slow, or too expensive. This legislation will
change all of that by delivering on the promise of universal
high-speed broadband for all. We upgrade our Nation's 9-1-1
system, giving our first responders more effective and reliable
tools. We make massive investment in upgrading our Nation's
water and infrastructure.
Good to see Ernie Moniz and Tom Wheeler here. I will yield
back.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Mike Doyle
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing.
The LIFT America Act is a transformational investment in
the future of our Nation.
We have been talking about closing the digital divide for
as long as I have been on this committee--for far too many
Americans broadband is unavailable, too slow, or too expensive.
This legislation would change all of that--by delivering on
the promise of universal high-speed broadband for all.
The bill would also upgrade our Nation's 9-1-1 systems--
giving our first responders more effective and reliable tools
to help us in our moments of crisis.
This bill makes a massive investment in upgrading our
Nation's water and energy infrastructure--to protect our
children, to upgrade our grid, and so much more.
It also invests now in our public health infrastructure--so
that we can face the next public health crisis stronger and
more prepared.
It's good to see Ernie Moniz and Tom Wheeler back before
us.
I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses and I
yield back.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Doyle. Short as always.
And then last is Mr. Tonko.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The LIFT America Act includes important contributions from
E&C's subcommittee perspectives. It reauthorizes several
drinking water programs, including the Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund. It is funded at increasing levels and reaches
$5.5 billion annually. This long overdue investment is
responsive to EPA's sixth Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs
Survey, which found over $470 billion is needed to maintain the
Nation's drinking water infrastructure over the next 20 years.
LIFT also authorizes $22.5 billion for lead service line
replacements. The bill creates a new EPA grant program to
reduce emissions from ports and reauthorizes EPA's Brownfields
Program at increasing levels, reaching $550 million for fiscal
year 2026. It is all about creating jobs and securing a
stronger economic development.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Paul Tonko
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The LIFT America Act includes
important contributions from the Environment and Climate Change
Subcommittee.
It reauthorizes several drinking water programs, including
the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. The SRF is funded at
increasing levels and reaches $5.5 billion annually.
This long overdue investment is responsive to EPA's 6th
Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey, which found over
$470 billion is needed to maintain the Nation's drinking water
infrastructure over the next 20 years.
LIFT also authorizes $22.5 billion for lead service line
replacements through the SRF with priority given to systems
serving disadvantaged communities.
The bill creates a new EPA grant program to reduce
emissions from ports and reauthorizes EPA's Brownfields Program
at increasing levels, reaching $550 million for fiscal year
2026.
These are critically needed infrastructure investments that
will protect public health and our environment while creating
jobs and supporting economic development.
I look forward to today's hearing and our future efforts to
invest in these programs. I yield back.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Tonko.
So now we are going to recognize the minority for 5 minutes
to be evenly divided between Mr. Latta and Mr. McKinley, and I
will recognize Mr. Latta at this point.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. LATTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
During the several Congresses that Republicans led this
committee, we have been working with you all to pass
substantive bipartisan policies that move the country forward.
We are seriously disappointed we have not been able to reach
the same consensus we have had in the past years, and the
importance of bipartisanship has been seemingly forgotten.
The issues before us today should not be partisan. They
impact Americans in each of our districts, regardless of their
political party, and we owe it to them to work together on
their behalf. Republicans on this committee recently
reintroduced the Boosting Broadcast Connectivity Agenda to help
Americans get broadband more quickly, and not a single one of
those proposals is included in the legislation before us today.
The same goes for broadband mapping, which has historically
been a bipartisan issue. Acting FCC Chairwoman Rosenworcel, who
has several times stated ``no money before maps,'' is now
saying that it could take up to a year to complete the maps.
Yet, here we are today evaluating legislation that pushes $80
billion out the door before the maps are completed. We have
made this mistake before, and it appears we could make it again
if this legislation proceeds.
Furthermore, it has long been a bipartisan effort to
upgrade our 9-1-1 networks to NextGen 9-1-1. In fact, we have
been working with you and your staff diligently over last
several years on legislation to authorize this program. But in
this legislation, you threw away all the bipartisan work. On
top of that, I am not convinced that the $15 billion in this
bill for NG 9-1-1 will actually accomplish the goal of an
interoperable nationwide 9-1-1 network. I could go on, but I
will leave it there for now. I am truly disturbed by the
actions.
It is clear that this legislation is a partisan wish list.
We must strategically and smartly fund programs that have real
impact only after evaluating what we have done already in order
to see if it is working or not. Unfortunately, this bill does
not do that at all but instead throws money thoughtlessly at
every problem in hopes that it will be fixed. I can tell you
right now that isn't how we make long-lasting solutions.
Mr. Chairman, at this time, I am going to yield the balance
of my time to my colleague, the gentleman from West Virginia,
Mr. McKinley.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Latta follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Robert E. Latta
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
During several Congresses that Republicans led this
committee, we were able to work with you all to pass
substantive, bipartisan policies to move this country forward.
I am extremely disappointed that we have not been able to
reach the same consensus we have had in years past, and the
importance of bipartisanship has been seemingly forgotten.
The issues before us today should not be partisan. They
impact Americans in each of our districts, regardless of their
political party. Don't we owe it to them to work together on
their behalf?
Republicans on this committee recently reintroduced the
Boosting Broadband Connectivity Agenda to help Americans get
broadband more quickly, and not a single one of those proposals
is included in the legislation before us today.
Same goes for broadband mapping, which has historically
been a bipartisan issue. Acting FCC Chairwoman Rosenworcel, who
has several times stated ``no money before maps,'' is now
saying that it could take up to one year to complete the maps;
yet here we are today, evaluating legislation that pushes $80
billion out the door before the maps are completed. We've made
this mistake before, and it appears we could make it again if
this legislation proceeds.
Furthermore, it has LONG been a bipartisan effort to
upgrade our 9-1-1 networks to Next Generation 9-1-1. In fact,
we have been working with you and your staff diligently over
the last several years on legislation to authorize this
program. But in this legislation, you threw away all of that
bipartisan work. On top of that, I'm not convinced that the $15
billion in this bill for NG 9-1-1 will actually accomplish the
goal of an interoperable, nationwide 9-1-1 network.
I could go on, but I'll leave it at that for now. I am
truly disturbed by these actions.
It is clear that this legislation is a partisan wish list.
We must strategically and smartly fund programs to have a real
impact only after evaluating what we have already done in order
to see if it is working or not. Unfortunately, this bill does
not do that at all, but instead throws money thoughtlessly at
every problem in hopes that it will be fixed. I can tell you
right now, that isn't how we make lasting solutions.
I yield the remainder of my time to my colleague Mr.
McKinley.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
Mr. McKinley is recognized.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID B. McKINLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Latta, and thank you, Chairman
Pallone.
This massive partisan--partisan--bill seeks to further
carry out Biden's environmental agenda, and part of that
includes the infrastructure needed for electric vehicles. Look,
I am one of those engineers that you mentioned earlier as a
civil engineer, that they would be great on the infrastructure,
but I am fascinated by the injection of political timelines and
ideology into an engineering decision.
Fundamentally transforming our entire transportation away
from the dependable internal combustion engine is one thing,
and I don't really have a serious problem long term on that,
but performing open-heart surgery on such a crucial component
of our economy should demand more than an academic exercise.
Congress needs to grasp the economic consequences.
So I will ask a number of questions like: How do we ensure
a stable and resilient electric grid? What is the impact on
jobs in refineries, pipelines, and drilling? How do we develop
a domestic battery supply chain? Will America have a reliable
source for lithium, cobalt, nickel, and other critical
minerals? How do we replace the gasoline tax that will be lost
for road maintenance? What about the time lost in recharging
stations? What about accounting for the lack of trade-in values
for people trying to get rid of their internal combustion
engine? They are going to pay--nurses and schoolteachers are
going to have to pay 100 percent? Is this another unfunded
government mandate? Or what about addressing the increase in
landfill waste from batteries and renewable energy pieces?
Wouldn't this transition be less stressful if it occurred
using free market forces? Wouldn't that be a novel thing in
Washington, to use the free market approach. Not unexpectedly,
California and Massachusetts already are banning the sale of
cars with internal combustion engines as early as 2035.
So, Mr. Chairman, this debate is no longer the same as
legislating against plastic straws and Styrofoam. This is real
world, what we are talking about, people's jobs, economy and
communities. Congress should find the answers to questions like
I have just phrased before we move headlong into something so
transformative.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Prepared Statement of Hon. David B. McKinley
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. this massive, partisan bill seeks
to further carry out Biden's environmental agenda, and part of
that includes the infrastructure needed for electric vehicles.
As an engineer, I'm fascinated by the injection of
political timelines and ideology into this process.
Fundamentally transforming our entire transportation sector
away from the dependable internal combusion engine is one thing
but performing open heart surgery on such a crucial component
of our economy should demand more than an academic exercise.
Congress needs to grasp the consequences.
So I will have questions like:
How to ensure a stable and resilient electric
grid;
The impact on jobs in refineries, pipelines, and
drilling;
How to develop the domestic battery supply chain;
Will America have a reliable source for lithium,
cobalt, nickel, and other critical minerals;
How to replace the gas tax used for road
maintanence;
What about the time lost in recharging stations;
Accounting for the lack of trade-in value for
internal combustion vehicles;
Is this another unfunded mandate?
Or addressing the increase in landfill waste from
batteries and renewable energy sources;
Wouldn't this transition be less stressful if it
occurred using free market forces?
Not unexpectedly, California and Massachusetts already plan
to ban the sale of cars with internal combustion engines as
early as 2035.
So this debate is no longer the same as legislation
involving plastic straws and Styrofoam.
Congress should find answer to questions like these, before
rushing headlong into something so transformative.
Thank you and I yield back.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you. So I just want to remind Members
that, pursuant to committee rules, all Members' written opening
statements shall be made part of the record. So that is the end
of our opening statements, but please submit written statements
if you like.
And now I am going to introduce our witnesses. I just want
to give a little background on each of them. First is the
Honorable Ernest Moniz. He is president and chief executive
officer of Energy Futures Initiative and, of course, the former
Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy. Then there is Dr.
Tom Frieden, who is president and CEO of Resolve to Save Lives,
an initiative of vital strategies, and he is former Director
also of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention. We have
the Honorable Michael O'Rielly, who is a principal of MPOrielly
Consulting, LLC, and former Commissioner of the Federal
Communications Commission, and the Honorable Tom Wheeler,
visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution, senior fellow at
Harvard Kennedy School, and of course, former Chairman of the
Federal Communications Commission.
So I want to thank all of you for joining us today. We are
definitely looking forward to your testimony, and we will start
with Dr. Moniz, who is recognized for 5 minutes at this time.
Thank you.
STATEMENTS OF ERNEST J. MONIZ, Ph.D., PRESIDENT AND CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ENERGY FUTURES INITIATIVES, AND FORMER
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; TOM FRIEDEN, M.D., PRESIDENT
AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, RESOLVE TO SAVE LIVES, AND FORMER
DIRECTOR, CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION; MICHAEL
P. O'RIELLY, PRINCIPAL, MPORIELLY CONSULTING, LLC, VISITING
FELLOW, HUDSON INSTITUTE, AND FORMER COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; AND TOM WHEELER, VISITING FELLOW,
BROOKINGS INSTITUTION, SENIOR FELLOW, HARVARD KENNEDY SCHOOL,
AND FORMER CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
STATEMENT OF ERNEST J. MONIZ, Ph.D.
Dr. Moniz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Rodgers,
members of the committee, for this opportunity to discuss the
LIFT America Act. Coming on the heels of the disaster in Texas,
this hearing and the LIFT America Act's focus on improving the
Nation's energy infrastructure is very timely. We made energy
infrastructure an early priority in my tenure as Energy
Secretary with development of the Quadrennial Energy Review,
and I am pleased to see close alignment with the LIFT America
Act.
The urgency of upgrading our energy infrastructure in a
changing climate is painfully clear. The weather patterns of
the past are not adequate to inform those of the future, and
this profoundly affects infrastructure planning.
In looking ahead to infrastructure needs, it is useful to
note a number of technologies that will drive major
infrastructure needs.
Electricity and the grid: A reliable and resilient grid is
the infrastructure on which others depend.
Electrification of other economic sectors, especially
transportation and a continental scale charging infrastructure.
Large-scale carbon management: CCUS and gigaton scale and
several carbon dioxide removal pathways will depend on large-
scale carbon management infrastructures.
Fuels that complement fuel electricity: A low carbon fuel
will be needed, and hydrogen is the most likely candidate,
requiring yet another major infrastructure.
In this opening statement, I will highlight only a few of
the observations and recommendations in my written testimony.
Electricity grid modernization must reach multiple objectives,
but transmission buildout is challenging. Permitting could be
streamlined in a number of ways in a broad stakeholder process,
such as harnessing existing rights-of-way, and Congress could
initiate a review of Federal policy on wholesale market design.
Electric vehicle infrastructure must be scaled up rapidly
in the next 3 to 5 years, consistent with social equity.
Battery supply is also a critical need. Incentives for domestic
battery manufacturing and IP protection in an area of intense
international competition are critical. Battery supply
considerations illustrate the importance of supply chains for
critical metals and minerals, such as lithium and cobalt,
suggesting development of sustainable domestic mining. Offshore
wind is a good example of the importance of infrastructure
planning to enable a critical low-carbon pathway and create
lots of good jobs. New Federal policy for transmission system
buildout could include expanding DOE's loan program funding to
enable offshore wind, extending investment tax credits, and
reinstating 48C, advanced energy manufacturing tax credits.
Decarbonization of port infrastructure operations through
electrification or use of hydrogen or other net-zero carbon
fuels should be integral to infrastructure modernization.
For the natural gas system to be leveraged as part of the
clean energy transition, its emissions must be reduced to meet
climate policy targets. Greatly reducing methane emissions
deserves full commitment from industry. Hydrogen is a clean
energy carrier with multiple applications across every sector
of the economy. The infrastructures needed for hydrogen market
formation tend to be highly regional. Finding synergies with
other infrastructure needs for achieving deep decarbonization
could lower the overall development costs of a hydrogen-fueled
economy. Federal and State governments should work together to
incentivize early mover hydrogen CO2 hubs perhaps
through approved multistate regional compacts. Carbon capture
utilization and storage will be an essential element in any
portfolio of actions for meeting a mid-century net-zero goal.
Congressional action to encourage repurposing of existing
rights-of-way to allow for CO2 pipelines to colocate
with other infrastructures would be beneficial. DOE's
CarbonSAFE program could be enhanced and accelerated to advance
geologic storage hubs. New business models could encompass
creation of third-party carbon management entities, perhaps a
CO2 utility model transitioning firms and workers
with expertise in managing fossil fuel production and
processing.
Energy infrastructures are also increasingly dependent on
digital technologies, making broadband access a critical part
of modernizing those infrastructures. Smart cities and
communities should focus on the digital backbone
infrastructure, integrated smart electricity and
telecommunications systems linked to Big Data sensors, real-
time modeling, and artificial intelligence capabilities.
In concluding, I will note two broad themes. First is
unequivocal support for a focus on good jobs as part of any
successful climate action and clean energy infrastructure plan.
At EFI, we have partnered with the AFL-CIO to form the Labor
Energy Partnership. Without attention to jobs, we will face
unnecessary headwinds in reaching our climate goals.
Second, we strongly support a regional focus for solutions
to climate change and the associated energy infrastructure
needs. A one-size-fits-all approach to policy and financial
support will likely impede, not accelerate, progress towards
deep decarbonization.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Rodgers, members of the
committee, the LIFT America Act is a very important and
necessary step towards supporting the infrastructure we need
for deep decarbonization of energy systems and for building
resilience into our infrastructures in anticipation of
increasingly extreme weather patterns. I look forward to your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Moniz follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Dr. Moniz.
Next, we have Dr. Frieden, who is recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF TOM FRIEDEN, M.D.
Dr. Frieden. Good morning. Thank you so much, Chairman
Pallone, Ranking Member Rodgers, distinguished members of the
committee. My group, Resolve to Save Lives, partners with
countries to prevent 100 million deaths from heart disease and
stroke and to make the world safer from epidemics.
It has been more than a century since there has been a
pandemic this disruptive, and we have to always remember that
every case, hospitalization, and death represents a mother, a
father, a neighbor, a colleague, or friend. And it has been
unprecedented, but there is really room for optimism. The
situation is much better than it was weeks ago. We are
vaccinating more than 2 million people a day, and deaths are
steadily decreasing as a result, but better doesn't mean good.
Case numbers are still high. Declines have stalled or are even
increasing in some areas of the country, and the emergence and
spread of variant viruses is the wild card and single greatest
concern about response to the pandemic. Accelerating
vaccinations and other control measures as quickly as possible
is the best way to save lives and decrease the risk of
dangerous variants.
Now, here is the bottom line in terms of our health, and I
can talk to that specifically: We have to fix our broken
primary healthcare system. I won't talk more about that in this
testimony. We have to fix our broken public health system, and
we have to make the world safer because, if people are stronger
there, we are safer here, safer from epidemics.
And the plain truth is we haven't adequately invested in
public health. We spend $11,000 per person on healthcare, but
40--4-0--times less, less than $300 per person, for public
health. We are underfunded, understaffed, poorly coordinated,
and not equipped for modern-day crises. And the result was
avoidable illness and death with the pandemic.
Now, we can do five things to make a difference. Sorry, six
things.
First, long-term investments. It is very important that you
have made a down payment, but a sustainable system cannot rely
on one-time funding. It is inevitable there will be future
outbreaks. What is not inevitable is that we will continue to
be so underprepared. One-time supplemental doesn't answer the
question. We need an ongoing support.
Second, use a cross-cutting support. The Centers for
Disease Control has more than 160 budget lines. The solution
isn't to cut or merge or block-grant those lines. The solution
is to come up with new lines that are cross cutting that meet
the needs at the local level, State level, city level, and
global level.
Fourth, strengthen local and State health agencies so they
can rapidly respond to outbreaks.
Fifth, address the chasms between Federal and State and, in
most States, State and local public health agencies. That will
mean greatly expanding CDC programs that embed staff for 2 to 5
years or longer in State, city, and local and global public
health departments. That is how we move toward a more unified,
effective, efficient system that we should all support.
And, sixth, strengthen global health security. Disease
spread anywhere is a risk everywhere.
Last year, I testified about new ways to ensure sustained
public health financing. We cannot build sustained
infrastructure if our health defense agencies, including CDC,
HRSA and others, have to compete with very laudable and
important funding priorities: Head Start, research at NIH, and
many, many more. We proposed a sustainable funding mechanism
for public health infrastructure that would fund lines that are
essential for preventing, detecting, and responding to health
threats. We call this the Health Defense Operations Budget
Designation, or HDO. It would exempt specific congressionally
designated health security infrastructure funding from the
annual 302 spending caps. You decide in Congress what those
lines are. This would not be a fund. Congress would maintain
oversight on all programs, projects, and activities that you in
Congress designate as essential to secure our health security.
And you can mandate an OMB bypass professional judgment budget
so that you can know the unvarnished truth about what is needed
to provide sustained and sustainable funding so we can escape
this terrible and deadly cycle of panic and neglect, because
that is what we are in now.
The HDO proposal has strong bipartisan support. Forty-nine
leading public health groups have signed on, and I hope that no
matter how divided groups are politically, we recognize that we
share a common enemy. That enemy is dangerous microbes. We need
a sustainable public health infrastructure to defend our
country, our people, from health threats, just as we depend on
the military to defend us from threats foreign and domestic. We
can prevent the next pandemic. This is the moment to do it.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Frieden follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Pallone. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Frieden.
Next, we have Mr. O'Rielly. He is recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL P. O'RIELLY
Mr. O'Rielly. Members of the committee, thank you for
inviting me to share my views on the communications portions of
H.R. 1848, the LIFT America Act, and efforts to expand
broadband deployment for all Americans. For clarity, I do not
represent any public or private entity on this matter. These
are my own views.
The availability of high-speed internet allows users around
the world to communicate, learn, work, conduct commerce, and so
much more. These benefits have never been so apparent than
during the COVID-19 pandemic when Americans families have been
isolated and quarantined, driving households to seek and use
broadband technologies, whether via cable, fiber, wireless,
satellite, or otherwise, to a far greater extent than ever
before.
Despite dedicated efforts, there is no dispute that
millions of American households are still without access to
broadband. Thankfully, this situation is improving. Over the
last several decades, the FCC has taken many steps to
facilitate broadband deployment and greater access. During my
tenure at the agency, in both minority and majority capacities,
I helped spearhead efforts to reform and modernize existing
programs and initiate key new ones. These programs are working
and helping to shrink the unserved household population.
Respectfully, there are a host of issues addressed in H.R.
1848 that deserve more attention and major revisions, but I
will focus my comments on the broadband access provisions
because they are so questionable.
Experience has shown that there are two leading ways to
extend broadband to the unserved. First is through very
targeted, well-thought-out subsidy programs that focus directly
on unserved Americans and exclude areas that the private sector
is already serving or ready to serve.
Second, barriers to private-sector deployment must be
reduced or completely eliminated. Again, respectfully, I find
the LIFT America Act severely lacking for these reasons.
While I appreciate the interest of some to future-proof
networks, I disagree with the extensive funding and out-of-
touch definition of broadband. For instance, the push for
symmetrical speeds at exorbitant levels such as 100 and 100
megabits per second makes little sense. I couldn't figure out
where the recommended upload speed came from, so I chatted with
some experts in the space. The best anyone can figure out is it
came, at least in part, from the Fiber Broadband Association
filings.
In a 2021 table, the association assumed a household would
have two HD video streams with an upstream requirement of 5
megabits per second, one AR/VR stream with an upstream
requirement of 40 megabits per second, three securing
monitoring streams with an upstream 2 megabits per second
requirement, and a gaming stream with an upstream requirement
of 20 megabits per second, for a total of 82. Think about that.
Almost half of the upload speed is for AR/VR, which is, at
best, extremely raw. And gaming for the average family, a 100
meg upload speed does not reflect reality for now or any time
soon. And if I read the bill correctly, 20 percent of 80
billion or 16 billion will go to one gigabit upload. I also
don't think the overall broadband can handle 80 billion, and I
implore you to consider a level closer to 20 billion.
The consequences of these policies are very significant.
Essentially, such a push for inflated broadband speed will lead
to gigantic level of subsidized overbuilding since most of the
Nation does not meet the new definition. It wipes away any
technology other than fiber and scraps all Federal broadband
programs. This would not only be wasteful but discourage
private-sector investment and employment.
Equally important, government spending on served or
scheduled-to-be-served areas with very functional broadband
siphons the energy and ability to address those Americans who
are truly unserved. If passed, all efforts will shift to easier
and richer areas over these unserved areas without 25/3 today.
We are so close on this.
On a related topic, the simple fact is that some States and
local governments and private company limitations are acting as
barriers to greater deployment. I am pleased to see the broader
rate of legislative efforts introduced by committee members to
address many of these obstacles. The record is clear. Providers
can face high fees to utilize existing communications
infrastructures, poles, docks, conduits, and the like or
conduit and processes to gain rights-of-way and zoning
approvals. They also encounter limitations on the placement or
expansion of wireless facilities. Yet the bill excludes any
attempt to fix this colossal mess. By not addressing this, the
committee is effectively making broadband deployment slower and
more expensive.
On the positive side, I appreciate the efforts by the
committee to continue to exclude State and local government 9-
1-1 fee diverters--specifically New York, New Jersey, Rhode
Island, and Nevada--from receiving any of the new Federal grant
moneys identified for modernizing 9-1-1 networks.
I stand ready to answer any questions of the committee.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. O'Rielly follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. O'Rielly.
Next, we have Mr. Wheeler. You are recognized for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF TOM WHEELER
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member,
members of the committee. It is a privilege to be back before
you again.
The LIFT Act is historic, and that is not just hyperbole.
It is historic because it recognizes that the almost 100-year-
old approach that supported the expansion of electric and
telephone service into rural America doesn't work for
broadband. The legislation creates a new plan for universal
service, a build-it-once plan, that not only will deliver
broadband but also will finally stop the drip, drip, drip of
billions of dollars constantly being paid out with limited
results.
The bill is also historic in that it recognizes that the
40-year-old Reagan administration program to support low-income
telephone service is inadequate to support broadband. The
Lifeline program was the right idea, but it was built for
telephone service, not broadband. It was built for the ability
to call 9-1-1. But in terms of both costs and capabilities,
that is far different from the needed support to go online to
go to school, to apply for a job, or to get a COVID shot. So I
am not engaging in hyperbole when I say this is a once-in-a-
generation, maybe once-in-a-century, opportunity.
A few quick points that are covered in more detail in my
written testimony. Solving the rural broadband problem once and
for all requires supporting the buildout the same way we build
highways. Pay it once. The 1930s model that subsidized rural
telephone and electric service is inadequate for subsidizing
broadband. You build a telephone phone network to get a dial
tone. You build an electric network to flip a switch. But
building a scalable broadband network is not as simple because
of the ever-increasing demands for throughput. Thus far, we
have repeatedly subsidized just-good-enough networks that were
soon outdated. This bill focuses on subsidizing future-proof
networks. The bill focuses on unserved rural and Tribal areas,
breaking out of the trap of always having to hope for another
round of subsidies just to catch up.
While I was Chairman of the FCC, we increased the
definition of broadband to 25/3--25 megabits down, 3 megabits
up--and today that is only inadequate. I have included in my
written testimony AT&T's forecast of how usage in 2025 will far
exceed today's usage. And it is because of that exponentially
expanding usage that today 80 percent of Americans can get 1
gigabit service--1 gigabit service. Private capital didn't
build that capacity to waste money but to meet demand. Public
moneys have an even higher obligation to prevent 20 percent of
Americans from being trapped in second-class service and to
spend taxpayers' dollars as wisely as private capital is spent.
To catch up on the other 20 percent of Americans means building
with fiber and hybrid fiber coaxial.
I have appeared many times before this committee promoting
the wonders of wireless connectivity and I remain a wireless
advocate, but wireless is constrained by the finite nature of
spectrum from being a full-fledged substitute for wider
broadband. At last week's analyst meeting, AT&T reported that
average household data would grow to 1\1/2\ terabytes by 2025
and that usage of this magnitude won't be supported by mobile
networks on frequencies below 6 gigahertz and that the traffic
mix will shift towards the uplink, thus favoring fiber and full
duplex HFC. If AT&T is spending private capital to build that
future, public funds must have an equal discipline to invest
for that future.
The LIFT Act also is historic in its funding of broadband
subsidies for low-income Americans through the emergency
broadband benefit program. The EBB is a breakthrough because it
identifies that broadband support should be different from
telephone support. The LIFT Act appropriately funds the EBB,
but ultimately what is necessary is a permanent solution for
low-income consumers in rural and urban America just like a
permanent solution for rural development. The LIFT Act is also
historic because of its procompetitive initiatives, such as
transparency, noncorporate network ownership, and the
collection of pricing information.
And, finally, Mr. Chairman, a personal observation. I made
it a point in every single appearance I made before this
committee as Chairman to highlight the need for support to
upgrade our Nation's 9-1-1 capabilities. This bill does that.
This bill will save lives. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wheeler follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Wheeler.
And that concludes our witnesses' opening statements. So we
are now going to move to Members' questions. Each Member will
have 5 minutes to ask questions of our witnesses, and I am
going to start by recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
I want to get to three questions, so I am asking you each
to be brief.
First, to Secretary Moniz, I appreciate your hard work at
DOE and especially the comprehensive Quadrennial Energy Review
reports, which we would always mention. The committee is
actually going to hold two hearings on the Texas power crisis
this week, and I think that highlights the need for robust grid
infrastructure.
So my question is, What are the specific benefits of good
modernization, especially as it relates to resiliency and also
meeting our climate goals? Does the Texas power crisis present
any specific lessons about not prioritizing investments in our
Nation's energy infrastructure? You are supposed to answer that
in about a minute.
Dr. Moniz. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. A few comments on
Texas. One of the major lessons, very important, is that, as we
do grid modernization, we have to look at the intersections
with other infrastructures. In particular, the failed approach
to integrate response on the gas side and the electricity side
was a huge problem in Texas, so that is important.
Secondly, I would just add more generally, it is the
integration of IT and the electricity system on both the high-
voltage transmission and the distribution system that will be
extremely important for new services and for resiliency and
reliability. So, actually, I would just link that as well to
your broadband initiative, which is very, very important
because that will be part of this integration of IT and grid
that is so important.
If I may make one quick observation, I have a rural place
in southern Colorado, and we just got fiber optics, and it is a
revolution in what you can do in a rural setting, so I just
wanted to make that observation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pallone. And Ms. DeGette just put fingers up on that
one.
Let me go to Dr. Frieden. I know you really stress that the
COVID has, you know, highlighted the chronic underfunding of
State and local health departments as well as the Federal
public health system. Can you explain why a predictable,
stable, and consistent funding for public health infrastructure
is so critical? And even though we have provided some funding
during CARES Act, that it isn't sufficient for the long-term
sustainability of the public health system? Again, you have
about a minute.
Dr. Frieden. Let me just give you the experience of someone
who has run public health agencies for decades. When you get
one-time money, there are certain things you just cannot do.
You can't necessarily recruit the best staff because they know
that in 2 or 3 or 5 years, they won't have a job. You can't
necessarily hold contractors accountable because if they don't
do a great job, they think, eh, the money is gone next time.
You can't have partnerships with State, local, county, or
global partners who can trust you because when the money dries
up, you are going to pull the rug out from that partnership,
and that is exactly what happened after Ebola.
Congress devoted hundreds of millions of dollars to really
important programs, and we worked hard, hard, hard to
collaborate, figure out who to work with, and then the money
dried up and dozens of countries had to be defunded. CDC
operations stopped, including China. And that might have
changed--we don't know, but it might have changed the
trajectory of the pandemic. So we need a consistent approach,
not an on-and-off approach.
Mr. Pallone. I agree. Thank you so much.
And then, finally, Chairman Wheeler, I know you said that
the bill before us is a good approach, but if you just would
spend a minute telling us again why it is important that we
make a really bold investment in broadband right now at this
time.
Mr. Wheeler. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, but I mean,
let's look at we are confronted right now with multiple
existential crises, and the fascinating thing is that every
single one of those can be attacked using broadband. Broadband
helps alleviate those crises.
We are facing a pandemic, but responses could be
coordinated, and surely shots--you have to have broadband to be
able to get a shot. We are facing an economic crisis. The new
digital economy, the creation of jobs and economic growth,
builds on broadband. We are facing a social justice crisis: 10
million schoolkids can't have distant learning because they
don't have broadband; 40 percent of seniors don't have access
to broadband. And we are facing a climate crisis, and broadband
does help reduce emissions. So my point that I would make in
response to your question is here is one tool that can attack
four of the major existential crises that we as a Nation are
facing today.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
Now I am going to go to Mrs. Rodgers, the ranking member,
for 5 minutes. I yield to her.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. O'Rielly. You are the only minority witness
today to discuss this massive bill, and I look forward to
hearing you on the important topic of broadband deployment.
However, this bill does much further than just wasting
billions of taxpayer dollars on an ineffective broadband
deployment program. It also contains over $100 billion in
funding to subsidize unreliable renewables over clean baseload
power, like natural gas, nuclear, mandates electric vehicles
and electric vehicle infrastructure which will further burden
our grid.
That is why I requested another witness, former Deputy
Secretary for Energy Mark Menezes, to testify on the massive
expansion of government in the energy sector. Unfortunately,
this request was rejected by the majority. We did have two
minority witnesses for our last full committee hearing on this
bill when it was less than half the cost of the current bill.
Had he been allowed to testify, I would have asked him how
the LIFT Act further weakens our grid reliability, increases
our dependence on China, and prioritizes urban areas at the
expense of rural America. These are important questions that we
should have been allowed to explore today.
But the negative effects of this bill and what it would
have on our broadband deployment are equally important. The
legislation spends over $100 billion on broadband funding, but
I am concerned that it will only widen the digital divide. It
increases the minimum speed thresholds for areas to be
considered severe so that every part of America will be
eligible for this funding.
What does this mean? It means that Americans with zero
broadband service today will even move further to the back of
the line while ambiguous, quote, ``anchor institutions'' get
gold-plated service. This bill also directs the FCC to expand
the E-Rate program to serve households in addition to schools
and libraries, something already funded by other Federal
programs.
Mr. O'Rielly, what are some of the real impacts to
Americans and the communication landscape in this country if
this bill passes?
Mr. O'Rielly. Thank you for the question. You are
absolutely right that if this bill were to pass, the dollars
would go to those areas that are easier and more well-to-do
than those Americans who don't have broadband today, depending
how the count--whether it is 14 million or 20 million Americans
don't have broadband.
And I would agree with Tom Wheeler's point that he just
made on the benefits of broadband, but all of those things that
he highlighted can be done with the current speeds, certainly
on the upload side. You know, in terms of getting your pandemic
appointment, you can do wirelessly in most instances. So the
idea that you need this advanced network that we are talking
about in the bill is not necessarily true to his point.
But to yours, and it is very valid, you know, that the
anchor institutions will have extensive buildout and serving
the community, which will depress the private investment by
those communities trying to survive with small providers with
very little money. I have dealt with those companies, and I
have sat in those kitchens of those Americans without service,
and they will be deprived. They will be put at the back of the
line and dealt with another day as other things become
priority.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you. You know, in my district, we have
needs in urban Spokane. We also have needs in the rural
underserved areas. I represent remote and very difficult-to-
serve counties in eastern Washington. In your opinion, Mr.
O'Rielly, will this bill close the digital divide between urban
and rural areas?
Mr. O'Rielly. I would think that it would widen it in terms
of my previous experience, and I happen to have visited your
district or just outside and some of the rural parts. My sister
lives there, and so I have seen the territory and the
mountainous regions where she lives. And so I believe that this
would make it harder to serve those communities that don't have
broadband today.
Mrs. Rodgers. So what would be the best way to close the
digital divide, once and for all?
Mr. O'Rielly. I would target the money towards those
programs that are already operating and focus on those 14 to 20
million Americans or whatever the exact number is. The
Commission has been working hard on this. It is taking
criticism for the RDOF program, but the heart of the RDOF
program will be beneficial in getting to phase two and getting
the maps. All the things that are in line to be addressed will
be incredibly beneficial and help solve the problem for those
that don't have access today.
Mrs. Rodgers. You brought up the important work of the maps
and updating the maps. What is the status of getting the maps
updated? It has been over a year since the bill was signed into
law.
Mr. O'Rielly. In fairness, I don't have a great answer. I
have been removed for a number of months from the Commission,
and what I did hear from my last Senate hearing, that there was
talk of doing the maps in 4 months. And I welcome that because
they are absolutely needed to move forward on on at least two
programs, but that is if the rest of the bill doesn't wipe off
those programs completely.
Mrs. Rodgers. OK. Thank you, Mr. O'Rielly.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Pallone. Thanks to the ranking member.
Now we are going to move to Members. Now, you know, back
and forth, Democrat, Republican. I just want to tell everyone--
and I know some are going to get not happy with this--but, you
know, it is based on seniority at the gavel. If you weren't
present on camera at the gavel, then you go to the back of the
line, OK.
So the first person is--Ms. Eshoo is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to each
one of the witnesses. It is an all-star cast, and it is really
wonderful to see each one of you and to not only read your
testimony but to hear you make your comments this morning.
I want to go to former Chairman Wheeler for my first. Your
colleague, former colleague on the Commission, has offered his
critique of the bill. Can you, in a minute, respond to what he
has put forward? I think I am hearing in each area essentially
people looking in the rearview mirror and thinking they see the
future. This bill is all about building out our future in
specific areas, whether it is energy, broadband, public health.
So can you--would you just respond for a minute?
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Ms. Eshoo.
Ms. Eshoo. Yes.
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you very much. You know, I have the
greatest respect for my former colleague, and we did work
together on----
Ms. Eshoo. And I do too. And I do too.
Mr. Wheeler. But, frankly, I don't get this back-of-line
stuff, all right. I mean, the reality is that under the $80
billion plan, which is based on the study that we did in 2017
as to what would it cost to add fiber to every location in
America, OK, under that plan, everybody gets access to the
network. There is nobody that gets access to the money. There
is nobody in the back of the line. Everybody gets the same
opportunity to bring their service up to the kinds of levels
that the vast majority of America enjoys.
And I agree entirely with your point that we can't fall
into the trap of defining tomorrow in terms of yesterday. And
what I was trying to point out in my testimony is that AT&T has
told us that is not how they are spending money, and they are
telling us they are spending money on fiber. This is just in
the analysts meeting last week, and that is the kind of
approach that public moneys ought to take as well.
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Dr. Frieden, you rolled out six major points relative to
public health. Do you see the LIFT Act addressing those?
Dr. Frieden. I think it is really important. The
investments are crucial for our future. What is also crucial is
to ensure that they are sustained over time.
Ms. Eshoo. Right. Now, we know that somewhat from NIH. You
know, we increased--at one point we doubled the funding, but we
went through a period of time where funding was not sustained
and it didn't cover the increased costs of living and all of
that. So I agree with you.
Do you think that this bill meets those six points, or is
there something missing?
Dr. Frieden. I think what is missing is the long-term
sustainability, that addressing it is very important. I also
think it is very important we look at primary healthcare. I
didn't address that in either my written or oral testimony
because I was focused more on public health, but if you look,
very frankly, the U.S. does not have primary healthcare at the
center of our system. And this is something that I truly do
believe, like public health, is a bipartisan issue that
everyone can agree on. People should have a family doctor,
family clinician, urban and rural.
Ms. Eshoo. They are the entry point to the system, they
really are, the primary care.
Secretary Moniz, it is wonderful to see you, hear you, read
your testimony, and to all of you, your contributions to our
country are really significant.
Have we missed something in this legislation?
Dr. Moniz. I think the infrastructure bill, LIFT, really
will make tremendous across-the-board advances. I do think that
there is another emphasis that could be stronger in terms of
things like the integrated infrastructures, as I mentioned,
like large-scale carbon management with hydrogen, for example.
If we are going to make net zero and eventually net negative,
we will need technologies like carbon dioxide removal from the
atmosphere in multiple ways, including terrestrial and
mineralization. We need to have our infrastructure minds also
focused on these new infrastructures that we will need.
But I think the bill cnertainly moves across the board on
each of those four areas I mentioned at the beginning of my
testimony.
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you very, very much to each one of you.
Dr. Moniz. Mr. Chairman, if I may add one other note, Mr.
Chairman, besides the--it is just--it reinforced what Tom
Frieden said. I also serve as the CEO of the Nuclear Threat
Initiative, and in 2019 we issued a public health--a Global
Health Security Index. The world was unprepared. The United
States was relatively prepared, but the big markdown was lack
of access to a robust public health system, just as----
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you. I yield back. Thank you to each one
of you.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
Next is--Dr. Burgess is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Burgess. Thank you, Chairman.
Dr. Frieden, good to see you again. You spent a lot of time
in this committee over the last 20 years. It is good to have
you back in the committee again.
You know, I don't disagree with many of your points. I do
suggest that there is a bit of a disconnect between the bricks
and mortar and the actual people who are working within the
bricks and mortar.
The reason I bring this up, I was visiting a hospital down
in the southern part of Texas last week, and hit hard by
coronavirus, the area. Community spread was just beyond what
anyone expected in the early days of the illness, and they got
hit pretty hard. Now, they managed, and they are coming
through, but their biggest problem today is they can't keep
staff.
We have made so much money available through other things
that their staff kind of gets pulled away by, oh, contract
labor arrangements and emergency department staffing
arrangements such that, although they have managed during the
crisis, they are really having a tough time with their
staffing. And I know that is not the purpose of this bill, but
I just ask us to be careful when we are pumping money into
systems, it is not always done--sometimes there are unintended
consequences in places where you might not have expected them.
But kind of along those lines, when you look at all of the
healthcare infrastructure investment that has been made going
back even to the 1940s, how do we make sure that we are putting
the proper emphasis on the staffing, the men and women who are
actually going to deliver the healthcare, rather than just the
facilities themselves?
Dr. Frieden. Thank you, Dr. Burgess. That is a great
question. I am really delighted to dig into it with you.
I am going to make three suggestions, because I think it is
a really important issue. We have a shortage of public health
staff, 50,000 lines lost in the past 10, 15 years in public
health departments. We have a shortage of primary care doctors
because, quite frankly, we don't pay enough for primary care.
There is no mystery why there are fewer primary doctors: They
make a lot less doctors than other doctors, and it is supply
and demand.
So I think there are three things that we need to do to
address the personnel issue.
First, we need a robust Federal program that embeds staff
in State, city, and local health departments, thousands of
people who will be on the Federal payroll and rotating from
cities and States into and back to Atlanta CDC. We started this
in my time with something called the Public Health Associate
Program. It is a big success story, but it is a drop in the
bucket compared to what is needed. Two hundred people on top
year, we would get four or five thousand applications in just a
week. So one is CDC embedded staff.
Second, in the healthcare system we need to embrace team-
based care, where every member of the team practices at the top
of their license. That will make our healthcare system more
efficient and better for people. Right now, we don't do that.
Pharmacists, nurses, nurse practitioners, physician assistants,
and physicians only should practice at the top of their
license. That makes our system much more efficient and the
outcomes can be much better.
And, third, we have to address some of the efficiencies.
One of them is telemedicine. There is a lot that can be done on
telemedicine. Maybe this is one area where the broadband issue
and the health issue intersect, because we have seen parts of
the country where you can't do telemedicine because you don't
have high-speed internet. I have worked on electronic health
record programs, both in central city areas, impoverished
central city areas, and in rural areas where you can't do it
because you don't have fast enough internet connection, however
you define broadband.
And you also have to think about the interstate agreements,
and this is an issue that I think, you know, would have both
bipartisan support and maybe bipartisan opposition. But,
fundamentally, what you have in this country is different
States have guilds, and they make it difficult for perfectly
qualified practitioners from other States to practice in those
States.
Mr. Burgess. I am going to interrupt you there. We call
those professional standards.
Dr. Frieden. Sure.
Mr. Burgess. But I understand what you are saying. Look, I
just want to ask you another question, and it kind of goes back
to when we talked about the telecom side and the issue was made
about the private sector. The private sector is moving faster
in the telecom side than, say, the public sector, and this is
to some degree true of public health. We saw it big time with
the testing available for coronavirus in those early days.
Frank Pallone always said he wanted to see a national
testing strategy. We had that at the CDC, and unfortunately it
failed us. We only got on top of the testing when we embraced
what the private sector could bring to the equation as well,
and we saw the same story, essentially, in vaccines.
So it is not a silo. We do have to allow the participation
and the energy and enthusiasm of the private sector as well.
Dr. Frieden. Total agreement. It is an all-of-the-above
need. The CDC provides public health laboratory testing,
academic medical centers provide great testing for their
centers, and the private sector, well-regulated and supported,
provides quality testing for the country.
Mr. Pallone. All right. Thank you.
Thank you, Dr. Burgess.
Next is Mr. Doyle.
Mr. Doyle. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Wheeler--and Tom, it is good to see you back here
in front of the committee.
Mr. Wheeler. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Doyle. I just find it amazing that my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle seem to be telling their rural
constituents that any kind of broadband is better than no
broadband at all, and that you should be happy to get
yesterday's broadband because right now you don't have
anything. But it seems to me if we are going to keep building
networks that are already antiquated by the time we put them in
the ground, we are just setting up people and the networks
being built for failure. So I think you have made that point
pretty clear.
I want to talk, you know, the LIFT America Act includes
billions of dollars for broadband adoption and language to
ensure that people have access to affordable service. In
communities like my own in Pittsburgh, our main problem isn't
deployment, although more competition would be nice, but the
big barrier to adoption is the high price of service.
So why is closing the affordability gap more important than
ever in this bill?
Mr. Wheeler. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Doyle.
I mean, the fascinating thing is that more people could get
broadband but don't get broadband than the number of people who
can't get broadband. And why is that?
Mr. Doyle. Can't afford it?
Mr. Wheeler. The principle reason--Pew Research went out
and did a study, and they found the principle reason was price.
The average broadband monthly fee is $70 and up. Benton
Foundation, now I guess called the Benton Institute, did a
study of low-income Americans of which they said, you know,
``With all of the other priorities we have in life, we can
afford about $10 a month.''
There is the answer to your problem, sir. It is what does
it cost versus what is affordable. And it is wonderful what EBB
has done to address that affordability problem. The point that
I have been making in my prepared as well as my direct remarks
here is that we have to find a permanent solution that enables
the access for those that have the wire going past their door,
but they can't afford to bring it in.
Mr. Doyle. Right. Chairman Wheeler, my colleagues seem to
think that their constituents in rural communities are going to
someday be served by 5G, but we both know that if you don't
have dense fiber networks, you can't have 5G.
Mr. Wheeler. Right.
Mr. Doyle. So how does the legislation serve the dual
purpose of bringing high-speed broadband to the whole country
and enabling rural communities to get access to 5G? And do you
see any other way for rural communities to get access to
advanced wireless services without this legislation, such as
through the deregulatory proposals that my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle like to talk about all the time?
Mr. Wheeler. Well, let me answer that in reverse, Mr.
Doyle. You cannot deregulate your way to full coverage.
Mr. Doyle. Yes.
Mr. Wheeler. Which is not to say, by the way, that there
aren't some legitimate issues, intentions that exist between
local and national governments, and those can be resolved
through common efforts. The fiber issue is fascinating in its--
you know, everybody thinks about 5G, it is all about the
airwaves. One of the reasons that China got out front on 5G is
their fiber infrastructure because, in using the spectrum made
available for 5G, the physics of that spectrum limit the
propagation of the signal. Therefore, you have to have more
antennas, and those antennas need to be connected by more
fiber. And so 5G is a fiber issue as well as a spectrum issue,
and if we don't have the fiber backbone, you can have all of
the spectrum in the world and you are not going to have an
effective service.
Mr. Doyle. Yes. Let me just--last question. Some people on
the other side of the aisle said that the Federal Government
doesn't need to invest in Next Gen 9-1-1 technologies for the
systems to be universally deployed. Why is that wrong? And what
will we lose if we fail to upgrade these systems in a prompt,
organized, systematic fashion?
Mr. Wheeler. Well, Mr. Doyle, we are stuck with the
buggywhip era, the horse and buggy era of analog 9-1-1. There
are things that you could do on your cell phone that the first
responders, who will have the chance to save your life or keep
your house from burning down, do not have. They can't get
video. They can't get pictures. They can't get precise
locations. They can't get all kinds of data.
But the other fact is--and when I was Chairman, I would go
out and tour Next Generation 9-1-1 operations, and I found that
not only did it increase capabilities, but it lowered costs----
Mr. Doyle. Yes. Thank you.
Mr. Wheeler [continuing]. And investment.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you. Good to see you back, Tom.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Doyle.
Now I will move to Mr. Latta, to recognize for 5 minutes.
Mr. Latta. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
Commissioner O'Rielly, it is great to see you again, and
also I want to thank you again for coming to my district twice
when you were with the FCC.
You know, it was almost exactly a year ago tomorrow that
President Trump signed the bipartisan Broadband Data Act into
law to update our Nation's broadband availability maps. As you
know, these maps aren't completed. The LIFT Act would create
several broadband grant loan programs totaling over $80
billion. The timeframes in this bill would require the FCC and
States put this money out the door likely before the FCC is
able to complete its maps.
What are the risks of this $80 billion being spent before
the broadband maps are completed?
Mr. O'Rielly. Well, it looks to be--your point is exactly
on point--is the timeline will be dollars going out before the
maps are done. Now, even if the maps are done in 4 months, you
are going to have to restart the maps and restart the data
collection based on the new definitions that are put forward.
I don't want to give anyone the impression that everything
is copacetic, and that everything is going great or we should
remain with the status quo. We still need to solve the
broadband issue for those that don't have access, and the maps
that you speak of are so critical, it will be completely wiped
out, as I see it, by the new bill.
Mr. Latta. Thank you.
Commissioner, followup. While there are plenty of questions
and concerns about what is in the bill, I am also stunned as to
what is not in the bill. Under Republican leadership, we
enacted the bipartisan, bicameral RAY BAUM's Act, which
included permiting proposals through a bottom-up, regular-order
process. Republicans also recently introduced 28 bills as part
of the boost in broadband connectivity agenda, none of which
are also included in the LIFT Act.
Would you discuss the importance of Congress enacting
permanent regulatory and permiting reforms to close the digital
divide and lower prices for consumers through competition?
Mr. O'Rielly. Absolutely. I think I heard Tom Wheeler
agreeing that there were some issues here that could be
resolved, and relying on just cooperation in it is not going to
get you there. In both the Spectrum Act of 2012 and RAY BAUM's
Act, Congress came together and said, ``We need to resolve
these sticking points that we have identified that are
preventing the extension of networks.'' Multiple layers,
whether they be in environmental, whether they be in the
permiting process, whether they be Federal ends, now exist and
those are being--you know, we are facing tons of lawsuits.
Every time the Commission tries to do something, it is getting
sued on this exact point, and those things need to be resolved
in order to move forward and get deployment to the hardest
corners of America.
Mr. Latta. Thank you.
Mr. O'Rielly. In my opinion, to exclude them is missing a
vital opportunity in this bill, whether it is all 28 or even
more things that I would recommend should be included.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Secretary Moniz, it is good to see you before the committee
again.
And the court authorized $22.5 billion for State and local
governments to support projects that encourage the use of EVs.
In comparison, this bill would authorize $375 million to expand
development of alternative fuel infrastructure and the expanded
use of alternative fuel vehicles.
With the billions of dollars of investments that this bill
would make in EVs and electric vehicle infrastructure, do you
think automobile manufacturers would be more likely or less
likely to invest in vehicles that use other sources of fuel,
such as biodiesel, natural gas, ethanol, hydrogen, or propane?
Dr. Moniz. Well, thank you for the question, Mr. Latta, and
it is a pleasure to be back with you and the committee.
Look, in my view, the reality is that we have seen the auto
companies make their declarations: GM with their commitment to
all electric by 2035, Ford not to be outdone, stratospheric
valuations for Tesla. So I think there is no doubt that
electric vehicles are going to be a very central part of our
path forward.
Now, there still may be alternative fuels as well in there,
particularly with plug-in hybrids, for example, but the reality
is I see the EV infrastructure being invested in early as
something that enables our companies, our manufacturers to go
where they want to go. They have made it very, very clear. As
well, what we are seeing is an enormous increase in the battery
manufacturing industry in the United States. We have just heard
multiple commitments made, again, Ford and GM driving much of
the construction.
So I think the--I do support very strongly the EV
infrastructure charging. I do think there are many challenges
that have to be met, particularly with regard to social equity
issues, because clearly the architecture for urban
environments, for suburban environments, and for rural
environments, are going to look very, very different. So we
have got to think it through, but that is what will allow our
companies, our manufacturing companies, to follow their
commitments that they have made as far as EVs critical to our
future.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, my time has expired, and I yield back.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Latta.
Next, we go to Ms. Schakowsky.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to start by just saying we have learned a heck of a
lot about the need for a more robust public health
infrastructure during this COVID time.
I wanted to particularly emphasize now and focus on
community health centers, several of which I have, many of
which I have in my district, and they are a real godsend.
So, Dr. Frieden, I am so happy to see you again. I want to
thank you for all of your past service and for being with us
today.
As you are aware, community health centers play a critical
role in providing care to vulnerable populations who are
predominantly lower-income people of color. And Black and Brown
and indigenous and immigrants in immigrant communities across
our country share a disproportionate burden of the illnesses
and death caused by COVID and other diseases. In the response
and aftermath of the pandemic, we must prioritize addressing
these disparities that are so chronic in our society.
So here is my question: We know that COVID led to more
severe consequences in the communities that I described. They
have higher rates of certain chronic illnesses. What does the
correlation between minority communities and a higher burden of
COVID tell us about what we have to do about our public health
infrastructure?
Dr. Frieden.
Dr. Frieden. Thank you so much, and it is nice to see you
and your colleagues again, Congresswoman.
I think, first, we have to look at the cause, three things:
One, in the disadvantaged, underrepresented communities, you
see more exposure, more underlying health problems, and less
access to care and vaccination. So Black and Latinx Americans
are twice as likely to die from COVID and half as likely to get
vaccinated. And that is not because of resistance or
reluctance. That is because of a lack of access and appropriate
outreach to the communities.
So what do we need to do differently? We need a much
stronger public health and primary care system. We need
sustained investments. And when it comes to primary healthcare,
I am big fan of community health centers. My first job was
working for a community health center before I went to medical
school.
But I have to say that they need to be fully supported, but
they are only going to address 10 or 15 percent of the
population need, and therefore we really do need to fix the way
we fund healthcare so that we have an ongoing support for
primary care. Primary care has to be central to our healthcare
system. That includes community health centers and, as the bill
has, Indian health services and others, but it also means
looking at how we make sure that doctors, nurses, pharmacists,
physician assistants, and others can play a critical role in
quarterbacking and improving care.
It is quite striking. It is not just about the minority
communities. The U.S. as a whole lives on average about 4 years
less. In the time we are alive, we live with more disability
than other countries in Europe and elsewhere, and that is
because we [inaudible] meet primary care.
Ms. Schakowsky. That is an unacceptable number that you
just gave us.
I wanted to connect, though, what we are talking about to
what people commonly think about infrastructure. A recent
survey of health centers across the country found that capital
project investment through 2025 would cost about $17.5 billion.
The top areas of focus for current planning has to do with
medicine, medication, mental health, et cetera.
So how do we link this to infrastructure? What are the
infrastructure issues that are going to address the problems
that we are facing?
Dr. Frieden. So, briefly, one of them is data. Data systems
need to be updated and maintained over time. Another is
training of staff. So we need to upgrade the number of people.
A third is actual facilities. Four, primary healthcare,
community health centers and others. In addition, we need to
ensure that we are strengthening not just the people and not
just the informatics, but also the broader systems that collect
information, surveillance or monitoring systems so we can track
diseases and track the effectiveness of primary care programs,
because we are not getting the kind of health value for our
health dollars that we need.
So we need data systems. We need information systems that
are broader than data systems, and we need the people and the
places to do it right.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you so much, and I look forward to
addressing some of these in this bill that we are discussing
today.
Thank you. Good to see you, Tom. Bye.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
Next, we go to Mr. Guthrie.
Mr. Guthrie. Thanks, Mr. Chair, I appreciate the
recognition.
To Dr. Frieden, according to the American Journal of
Managed Care, hospital acquisitions of physician practices
increased from 35,700 hospital and practices in 2012 to 80,000
in 2018.
Further, according to a March 2021 Medical Payment Advisory
Commission report, hospital access to capital remains strong
due to years of relatively high pay or profit margins. The
report states that access to capital, and I quote, ``is
reflected in significant hospital construction, in strong bond
offerings at relatively low interest rates.''
So my question is, given that hospitals and facilities have
access to adequate access to capital, why should Congress
authorize Federal funding for capital improvements?
Dr. Frieden. I think what we see is in the hospital sector,
you have the haves and have nots. And in rural hospitals and
places that are dealing with the kind of patient population
that gives lucrative reimbursement, you have real needs. But
the bigger problem I want to come back to is primary
healthcare. Quite frankly, all over the world, including in the
U.S., we have an imbalance where the relative funding of
hospitals versus primary care is not what will maximize health,
and we need that sustained investment in primary healthcare to
keep people out of hospitals and let hospitals focus on the
conditions that absolutely need hospital care. But if we don't
invest in primary healthcare, we are never going to have enough
money for the hospitals that our aging population needs.
And, remember, our population isn't just aging. We also
have a high rate of obesity that increases the need for
hospitalizations. We continue to have a high rate of tobacco
use, which increases the need for hospitalizations. We have
unhealthy nutrition and lack of physical activity so that
people aren't active. All of those things result in more
expensive care with not as good healthcare outcomes.
Mr. Guthrie. OK. Thank you.
And I will ask you a second question. In section 40004 of
the LIFT Act, it authorizes $4.5 billion to support the
modernization and improvement of testing in clinical labs.
Would you agree that instead of creating a brand new program,
Congress should work with the CDC on expanding and improving
the epidemiology and laboratory capacity for infectious
diseases cooperative agreements?
Dr. Frieden. So I do I think the ELC, as it is called, the
epidemiology and laboratory capacity, that is one of the best
grant programs of CDC. It works very effectively. It has been
used in a series of emergencies, and we need to build on that
program over time.
I do think that laboratories tend to be the poor relation
in public health. They tend to be neglected. And, quite
frankly, CDC didn't get it right with the laboratory work this
time around, and that didn't happen before, and we still don't
have a clear public accounting of what went wrong. So I think
that is needed.
During my time at CDC, when a pandemic hit, H1N1, we had a
lab test approved within days. It was 1 million tests were
distributed. But as Dr. Burgess indicated, it is not just about
the public health laboratory system. You really have a three-
legged stool. You have the public health laboratory system.
That needs to much stronger, including genomics. Then you have
academic medical centers that make their own tests. That is
largely an FDA regulation issue of allowing them to do that.
And then, commercial laboratories, which need to be given
standards because, quite frankly, during COVID we spent as a
country hundreds of millions of dollars for tests that came
back so late that were virtually useless. And we need to tell
the commercial sector, ``You are great, you can move faster and
at scale in a way that other sectors can't, but you have to
meet these requirements for performance''--for example, results
in 24 hours.
So I think there are multiple areas. But remember that
laboratories do tend to be the poor relation and neglected. It
took us a long time to get even a little bit of money for
things like genomic surveillance at CDC and strengthening of
laboratories.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. Thank you very much. I appreciate
the answers to those questions.
I want to move to Mr. O'Rielly. During your time at the
FCC, Open RAN is something that you worked on as well as I
worked on with several of my colleagues last Congress. Can you
tell us about the benefits of adopting to a software-centric
virtualized network can bring to other telecommunication
networks?
Mr. O'Rielly. Absolutely. Simply put, Open RAN can provide
two things: One, it can increase the security of the network,
plugging in a critical new piece of equipment by software
rather than requiring an end-to-end solution through hardware.
And, two, it can reduce the cost for wireless providers that
are trying to deploy these networks as soon as possible and get
to the technology certainly at the edges if they can.
So Open RAN has great promise. I want to be careful,
though. There are some concerns, and I have been mindful of
this, technology neutrality in terms of vendor mandates. We
want to make sure we do it and don't cause harm by doing so.
But Open RAN has quite the promise.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
We are going to go now to Mr. Butterfield.
Mr. Butterfield. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me
say good morning and good afternoon to my colleagues. It is
good to see all of you today. And thank you to you, Mr.
Chairman, for your leadership. Thank you for this very, very
important and enlightening hearing today. And last, but not
least, thank you to the witnesses. It is good to see all of you
again.
You know, Mr. Chairman, as you have heard me say over the
14 years that I have been on this committee, I represent a
rural district in eastern North Carolina where some communities
still today, 2021, lack access to high-speed broadband that has
become so necessary for us to participate in the modern world,
especially since we have had the pandemic.
Qualified broadband providers are being discouraged. They
are being discouraged from participating in FCC programs that
could expand broadband access into these underserved and
unserved communities. These communities are--they are outdated.
There are inconsistent eligible telecommunication carrier
requirements that we have to deal with. The ETC requirements
are out of date, and they need our attention. In addition to
expanding access, removing the ETC designation will spur
competition, in my opinion, improve both efficiency and quality
of service for consumers.
So last Congress I introduced the Expanding Opportunities
for Broadband Deployment Act, a bill that would retire this
unnecessary restriction so that providers will no longer have
to wait for State-by-State approval to participate in the FCC's
lifeline and broadband deployment program.
Similarly, the funds included in the bill before us today
for broadband buildout across the country do not require an ETC
designation for their use, and so I will introduce, Mr.
Chairman--reintroduce this bill very soon, and I intend to work
with my colleagues on this committee on both sides of the aisle
toward passage. I am pleased that the ETC requirement is not
included in the LIFT America Act, because retiring the ETC
designation requirement is critical. It is so critical to
reducing variance to broadband deployment.
So in the little time that I have left, Mr. Chairman, I am
going to start with Tom Wheeler. It is good to see you, Mr.
Chairman, again. I remember the first time you met with a small
group when I came on to this committee. At the end of the
meeting, I approached you and told you that you were one of the
few witnesses that we had that I understood 100 percent of what
you said.
So often it is above my head and sometimes I can't get my
hands around it, but you have such clarity.
Chairman Wheeler, I understand that you tried to address
the ETC issue in the lifeline program and, Commissioner
O'Rielly, I understand that you have written about this as a
barrier.
Could each of you, starting with Mr. Wheeler, talk a little
bit about that?
Mr. Wheeler. Mr. Butterfield, thank you. It is great to see
you. And I am reminded of that quote of Robert Browning: ``To
have great poets, there must be great audiences.''
Mr. Butterfield. Yes.
Mr. Wheeler. But I think that this is a situation where
Commissioner O'Rielly and I could be in violent agreement that
ETC doesn't make any sense anymore. And it is a legacy of the
fact that we are dealing with a telephone program that wasn't
designed for broadband.
You are right, I tried to do something about it when I was
Chairman. Unfortunately, I couldn't get a majority of the votes
to do it. But it makes no sense to continue ETC as one of the
tests.
So, Mike, take it away.
Mr. Butterfield. Yes, Mr. O'Rielly, take it away, please.
Mr. O'Rielly. Thank you, Tom, and I really appreciate your
leadership on this issue. I completely supported your bill last
go-around and will do so in this one.
Tom is right, I wasn't able to support his effort, and it
wasn't because I disagreed on policy, it was with some legal
matters, and that is why Congress is so actively inured, so
your engagement is so critical on this point. The ETC
designation no longer makes any sense, if it ever did, and it
is preventing providers from participating in FCC programs and
building out and extending networks in nearby areas because it
crosses street lines in some instances, and that burden isn't
worth the cost they would have to go through. So they don't
participate, and it raises the cost.
So I think it is absolutely something that should be
corrected going forward. And we have an example. The EBB
program that I am in favor of and Tom has spoken about doesn't
include this, and you mentioned the LIFT Act, which I have a
lot of problems with, but here it is not included as well. And
you will run into some problems with State regulators on this
issue, but it absolutely has to be done to get rid of the ETC
designation.
Mr. Butterfield. Thank you for your clarity. You are so
enlightening, and for those of you, my colleagues that don't
fully understand this issue, I know you can't get your hands
around everything that we talk about, but if this is something
that you have an interest in, we would be delighted to talk
with you about it, because it is a big deal and it makes sense.
Thank you so much. I yield back.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
Next, we go to Mr. McKinley.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I direct my comments to Dr. Moniz. I am looking for you
again on this--someplace on here. There you go.
Listen, I have missed having you testify before us for the
last few years. I always enjoyed your insight into it. Listen,
I have got to say I agree with you, not including carbon
capture in this bill does not make sense. It really doesn't.
But since this bill--if I could direct my questions to you,
since this bill begins the transition of the Federal fleet to
electric vehicles by 2025, beginning of 2025, and hybrid fuels
could be banned by 2050 if President Biden has his way.
So let's talk a little bit about the Federal fleet. It is
about 650,000 vehicles. And according to the Journal of Power
Sources and testimony we had a few weeks ago from Mark Mills of
the Manhattan Institute, to acquire the critical minerals of
lithium, cobalt, nickel, graphite, copper, we will need,
manufacturers will need to excavate 250 tons of earth--250 tons
of earth--to get enough materials just for one battery.
So just imagine what that would be over 650,000 vehicles. I
did some math on that, and so, if we don't have available
biofuels or hydrogen as an alternative and we have to go to
electric vehicles, we are talking about a dump truck filled
with dirt, just for the Federal fleet--to go around the world,
a convoy around the world twice--just to get the materials we
need to build the batteries for our Federal fleet.
So I am just wondering about, since the other nations are
going to say we are not doing this in our backyard, we are
getting it out of Chile and Colombia and other nations all
around the world, how long are they going to tolerate us taking
all of their raw materials and tearing up their hillsides? How
long? Do you think they will continue to think that is OK?
Dr. Moniz. Well, Mr. McKinley--and it is good to see you
again--indeed, it is a very important issue, this question of
critical minerals and metals and the whole supply chain. There
is no doubt that we need to reevaluate this. I mentioned in my
remarks that we have to look at environmentally improved mining
in the United States because the critical minerals will
probably go up by a factor of 10 to 100 in many cases, except
that innovation will also come in. So on lithium, for example--
--
Mr. McKinley. I would like to reclaim my time, if I could,
Doctor. And I would like to get back--you and I could have more
of a conversation. I have got to slip in two more quick
questions, one to you and one to O'Rielly.
So let's go to the grid for a minute. The Boston Consulting
Group said if 15 percent of the vehicles are electric vehicles
by 2030 that we will have to have a 25 percent increase in our
electric generating capacity. So once--if this mission is
ultimately to get to 100 percent of electric vehicles, that
means we are going to have to have 165 percent more power
generated in America than we currently have today. I just--I am
wondering, are we ever going to be ready for something like
that?
So, in deference with the time on it, so if I could switch
over to O'Rielly on this----
Dr. Moniz. Could I just note, Mr. McKinley? I don't
understand those numbers. I don't agree with them, but we can
discuss later.
Mr. McKinley. From one engineer to a scientist, you might
be able to keep up. You know, we will see.
Dr. Moniz. Right.
Mr. McKinley. OK. Let's go to O'Rielly for a minute,
please.
So I want to switch to the jobs impact. I want to
understand the refineries, because if the purpose of this
ultimate legislation that the administration is pushing by 2050
to ban all fossil fuel emissions, and fossil fuels, what will
happen to the jobs and the refinery-driven economies of Texas,
Louisiana, Oklahoma, and elsewhere? What will happen to those?
What will happen to those jobs if we can't use gasoline or
diesel fuel?
Mr. O'Rielly.
Mr. O'Rielly. OK. I appreciate your question. I can
speculate and would agree with your----
Mr. McKinley. I know it is not your field.
Mr. O'Rielly. It is not my field, yes.
Mr. McKinley. You are an FCC guy. If we do this, what
happens?
Mr. O'Rielly. They are going to evaporate.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you.
Mr. O'Rielly. They are actually going to evaporate and not
going to be addressing critical States that are so important.
Mr. McKinley. That is why I want people to just slow down
sometimes and think about the consequences of this. I know we
are ultimately going to get to there, but to do this so quickly
as we are doing right now, I don't know that we have thought
about the consequences with it. So thank you very much.
And, Frank, I yield back to my chairman the balance of
whatever time I have got left, Frank.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
So next, we have Ms. Matsui.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I want
to thank all of the witnesses who are here today, many of whom
I have worked with in the past. It is great to see you.
The COVID-19 pandemic has only reinforced the value of and
growing demand for telehealth. This committee has made funding
available to support telehealth through the FCC's telehealth
program, but because of overwhelming demand just 539 of the
more than 5,000 applications have been funded. Clearly, the
want and need for us to properly equip our health systems is
there, and providers broadly recognize the 21st century
healthcare is so much more than just the four walls of a clinic
or hospital.
Dr. Frieden and Chairman Wheeler, do you both agree that we
should prioritize digital infrastructure alongside physical
infrastructure within our healthcare system? And I would like
comments from both, even though I have a lot more questions to
ask.
Dr. Frieden. Well, if you have a lot more questions, I will
keep my answer simple. Yes. We need a much stronger, more
robust digital infrastructure, and we definitely see gaps in
rural areas, definitely see gaps in some central city areas.
Ms. Matsui. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Wheeler. And I will be equally short. The answer is
yes. And one of the good things that is in the LIFT Act is
prioritizing into central locations in a community to make sure
that they get connectivity such as hospitals.
Ms. Matsui. Sure.
Mr. Wheeler. And that also, by the way, opens up the
ability to interconnect and get beyond there to the rest of the
community.
Ms. Matsui. All right. Thank you very much.
Climate change is reshaping our country's needs. My
district faces both severe droughts and devastating flooding
requiring----
[Audio interruption from another Member.]
Ms. Matsui. OK. Do I have my time here?
In Sacramento, I have been working with the CITY and
Regional Water Authority on the Sacramento water bank, which
will increase the region's storage and recovery capacities by
more than 50 percent. Similarly, the flood agency is
proactively looking at upstream reservoir modifications to
increase capacity for flood protection during a severe weather
event or providing water for groundwater storage.
Secretary Moniz, beyond hydropower, how do you believe we
can effectively use our waterways, particularly in dry western
States, to both minimize flood risk while maximizing water use
for our communities?
Dr. Moniz. Well, thank you, Ms. Matsui, and again, good to
see you back here at the committee.
First of all, I might just add that broadly the need to
address our whole dam system in the United States is absolutely
critical, and there have been some very encouraging activities
jointly between those worried about emissions for climate,
those worried about conservation, about preserving ecosystems.
So I think that this committee moving forward on those
issues of water infrastructure would be very important. And, in
fact, of course, as you know, we have extremes that will be
getting worse from drought to flood and a lot of them providing
public safety issues. We saw the disasters, for example, in
Michigan, in terms of some dam failures and tragic
consequences.
So, in other parts of the country, I might add, the inland
waterway infrastructure is also badly in need of being
addressed for energy and other commodities. So I would just
reinforce what you have indicated, that we need a comprehensive
look. And it must be regional because the regional needs are
going to be very different in, let's say, the Sacramento water
basin and other parts of the country.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you, Dr. Moniz.
I joined a bipartisan group of lawmakers who meet with the
President to discuss important issues in supply chain security,
including the strategically important semiconductor industry.
This meeting built on the progress we had in Congress by
including the CHIPS Act in the NDAA and to support American
semiconductor manufacturing and R&D.
Chairman Wheeler, can you discuss the role a reliable
semiconductor supply chain plays for innovation? And you have
got 15 seconds to say that
Mr. Wheeler. Without it, it does not compute, right. The
2lst century and modern telecommunications and the benefits of
what that delivers has been built on Moore's law, the constant
improvement of semiconductors. If we have a problem with
semiconductors, we have a problem writ large.
Ms. Matsui. Right. Thank you very much, and I want to thank
all of the witnesses.
I yield back.
Dr. Moniz. Mr. Chairman, may I just add a note that the
solar winds cyber event also pointed out the importance of
supply chain security for our infrastructure.
Ms. Matsui. Right. Thank you.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you. Thank you, both.
So next we have Mr. Griffith, Morgan Griffith.
Mr. Griffith. Thank you very much. I appreciate it, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. O'Rielly, I am going to ask you a couple of questions,
and I appreciate all that you have done to narrow the digital
divide and advocate for the truly unserved out there in our
rural communities. Although hearing some of the discussion
today, I am reminded that sometimes people in my district feel
like they are Charlie Brown and the Federal Government is Lucy.
We keep promising and we keep promising and we keep promising
that we are going to do something on broadband, and we keep
pulling the football away. And I think this bill does that too,
although I think it is well intentioned.
And the problem is, as you have pointed out, trying to get
100/100 before we get big chunks of my district to 25/3, it is
going to open up the areas where some--a lot of companies are
going to put the money into servicing areas that already have
some broadband. We don't have any in many parts of my district.
In fact, as it would be timely, The Roanoke Times ran an
article this weekend by Amy Friedenberger on March 20th--that
would be Saturday--``Can Starlink solve Virginia's broadband
challenges?'' And it talks about a Mr. Markham, who has called
Verizon every couple of years about getting internet cable to
his household in Kohala in Wise County, Virginia, and the
answer is always the same: They will get it there for $23,000.
That is one household. That is not a cul-de-sac. That is not a
community. That is one household. And, obviously, it is too
expensive for Mr. Markham's family to do that.
The Governor's team, Governor Ralph Northam's Chief
Broadband Advisor, Evan Feinman, says that, you know, there is
a lot of things that we can be doing. They are a little uneasy
about doing the satellites, but there are 300,000 locations in
Virginia, mostly in southwest--that would be mostly my
district--and south side, part of which I represent, and then
the tidewater region that don't have broadband access. And the
Commonwealth has been pouring dollars, more and more dollars
all along.
And another constituent, Mr. Short, lives about 600 feet
away from relatives who have broadband through Comcast. Now, I
am not sure it is 100/100, but he has got something. But for
him to get it to his house 600 feet away, it is just too
expensive.
I fear that we are going to eliminate services like
Starlink or their competitors down the road, as they come on
board, from being able to provide in some of these rural areas,
and right now it looks like they might be--when they get all of
their satellites up, they might be able to service a big chunk
of the territory. But it doesn't look like they are going to be
able to do it necessarily in a cost-effective means. But I am
not sure they get to the 100/100.
Do you know about that? And do you think, as you said
earlier, or do you believe that this is part of why it is going
to intensify or widen the divide between those who have
broadband and those who don't?
Mr. O'Rielly. You are absolutely right on the point that
parts of Virginia do not have broadband. I visited them myself.
I have represented different members over my timeframe in my
career.
The cost of construction to areas such as that you
represent are higher than they are to other places. So the
dollars, if the LIFT Act were to be enacted, would shift to
other places. So we would not deal with the communities that
you represent. The dollars would go elsewhere. It doesn't mean
that eventually they couldn't get to your point, but every time
we kind of get to that point to deal with the absolute people
who have nothing today, we move the goalpost. We did it when we
were at 4/1. We did it when we were at 10/1. We did it when we
were at 25/3. And every time we get close, we get into the
population that has absolutely nothing. And I have sat in those
kitchens and talked to the people. You represent a lot of those
folks.
That is absolutely a big, big problem, and that is why my
point was get everybody to 25/3 before you figure out how to
shift the agenda.
But your points in term of satellite: I am a big fan of
satellite. It has got a critique, and a lot of people disagree
with the satellite, and I like Starlink and what they are able
to do. In terms of 100/100, I can't promise you any speeds. I
don't think they would promise you any speeds. But I know when
I did a demo, we got 150 down. We didn't get 150 going up. The
upload speed is what I've been criticizing from the LIFT Act. I
don't think it matches up with reality. You don't need
synchronous----
Mr. Griffith. All right. Quickly, because my time is
running out: For folks back home who might think 25/3 is
nothing, what can you do with 25/3?
Mr. O'Rielly. You can do everything that is being done
today under the pandemic almost everywhere. I was criticized
for my speeds in the Senate hearing, and I will tell you, I
came back and tested my speeds. I am at 30. I am 30 in my
household, and I can operate my business, my wife's operating
her work. There is a lot of things that can be done with 25/3--
--
Mr. Griffith. So we can watch Netflix, and we can do
homework, and we can do telemedicine at 25/3.
Mr. O'Rielly. Absolutely.
Mr. Griffith. I appreciate it very much.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
Next is--Mr. Sarbanes is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thanks very much. I appreciate the hearing,
and I am a very proud sponsor of the LIFT America Act. This is
a terrific bill, represents a lot of collaboration by many
Members and, obviously, experts who have helped to provide
perspective on it.
The average American, I think when you say infrastructure
to them, they tend to think of highways and bridges and
tunnels. We know it is much more than that. We have talked
about public health infrastructure. We have talked about
broadband. We know we have to lift up the water infrastructure
across the country, the electric grid, et cetera. So
infrastructure means many, many different things, and the LIFT
America Act is trying to address those.
Secretary Moniz, I wanted to talk to you today a little bit
about the electric grid. It is an area that I have had a keen
interest in when it comes to this discussion about upgrading
our infrastructure. We know there's challenges. There is
growing demand. There is the need for reliability.
Of course, we saw what happened in Texas recently, which
was a commentary on lack of reliability under some very
difficult conditions. All of that shows that we have got to
adapt our grid to 2lst century requirements.
Could you talk a little bit about how modernizing the grid
is a smart investment, both from the standpoint of helping to
address carbon emissions as well as just promoting reliability
and affordability?
Dr. Moniz. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Sarbanes.
First of all, I think we all recognize, and it is really
always important to remember, how the electricity
infrastructure is like the Uber infrastructure. We saw that
with Texas when electricity went down. The gas supply was
suffering. There were some poor policy choices, clearly. But
the interplay of infrastructures means electricity must be
reliable and resilient, especially as its role in society grows
with the electrification of other sectors.
As I have said before, the integration with IT being able
to make near-real-time measurements in the grid will both
stabilize it and provide on the distribution side new services
that entrepreneurs can take advantage of.
So it will help with efficiency. It will help with demand
management, which is a big part of reliability and resilience.
So it will help with emissions, and it will help with the
economy. It also will be a big job driver. The electricity
sector is already the home to about almost 1 million workers.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thanks very much.
And I am thrilled that we have included in the LIFT America
Act the 2lst Century Power Grid Act, which I was privileged to
work on over the last couple of Congresses. That would empower
the Department of Energy to support projects and improve grid
performance, security resiliency, and so forth. We have got to
make that kind of investment if we are going to meet these 2lst
century challenges.
Let me talk briefly about green buildings in the time I
have left. And, again, Secretary Moniz, you in the last
appearance before this committee, I believe, talked about
investing in Federal buildings to reduce emissions, create jobs
at a time when the pandemic had severely impacted our economy.
Of course, that continues to happen.
Since then I have joined with my colleague on the committee
Congressman Welch. We have introduced the Federal Buildings
Clean Job Act, which would invest funds and leverage private
funds to make Federal buildings more energy efficient,
resilient, reduce green gases, and as you were indicating in
the other context, create a lot of very good jobs, creating
construction, and so forth.
Secretary Moniz, with the substantial building portfolio
the Federal Government has, how important is it do you think
that the Federal Government get into the business of building
efficiency and resiliency projects in its own buildings? And is
the Department of Energy in a position to assist in this effort
through programs like the Federal Energy Management Program?
Dr. Moniz. Yes. Thank you. I think it is a very, very
important initiative.
I will note that when I was Secretary we pushed very hard
on energy efficiency standards, saved consumers over a half a
trillion dollars up to 2030. There is no reason why the Federal
Government shouldn't enjoy those same savings on its energy
bills, and, so, I think advancing that is absolutely critical.
And I would just add, if I may, I strongly support the LIFT
Act's focus on residential. I strongly support your focus on
Federal buildings, and I would urge going further to have
energy efficiency programs that support State, county, and
local public buildings as well, an enormous opportunity, and
often public budgets, especially in rural America, otherwise
don't support those money-saving upgrades, both emissions and
money-saving upgrades.
Thank you.
Mr. Sarbanes. That is a terrific suggestion. I yield back.
Thank you.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
Next we go to Mr. Bilirakis. Gus?
Mr. Bilirakis. Two Greeks back to back. It is Greek
Independence Day on March 25th, Mr. Speaker. So thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Pallone. Amen.
Mr. Bilirakis. Appreciate it. Thanks for giving us the
opportunity.
And in regards to broadband, this committee, the FCC, and
the private industry spent years and tens of millions of
dollars, as you know, on broadband so we could get funds to the
truly underserved and stop wasting by needlessly overbuilding
our areas. The LIFT Act ignores all of that work, in my
opinion. Rather, it allocates upwards of $100 billion to
deployments that unnecessarily move the goalposts and target it
to areas that are already served.
And I know that that my good friend from Virginia mentioned
this, and I know there are a lot of people that face this
issue, the same issue. I am sure many of our colleagues, as I
said, in these areas are livid. They will never see broadband
if there are more populated areas eligible for funding. And
this legislation will only widen that digital divide. And I
recommend that we--and I strongly suggest that we address this
issue, Mr. Chairman. Meanwhile, my constituents will continue
to pay for the failed results.
A better impact on underserved areas is removing
regulations that prevent effective market participation.
Consistent requirements will help small businesses and startups
compete and grow in these areas. And then we can leave the
funding--again, we don't want our constituents paying, and we
need to leave the funding to the truly unserved areas, and I
really feel like everyone agrees with that. Everyone could get
the help they need, all of our constituents.
So my question is to Mr. O'Rielly related to regulatory
burdens and past experiences. What are the lessons learned from
the FCC's RDOF auction as the broad participation by providers
means more consumers will be served with far less funding? What
can be learned from that experience as we prepare for the
second round of RDOF?
Mr. O'Rielly.
Mr. O'Rielly. Yes. I appreciate your question. I think you
set it up quite nicely. You are absolutely right that the RDOF
had wide participation, and we had a number different of
technologies that were able to be part of it. And if you look
at what, you know, is contemplated in this bill, I think I
have--and other people have said it--it is just about fiber and
every other technology pretty much gets ignored by moving the
goalpost, as you indicated, and so I think that is incredibly
problematic.
As we get to RDOF phase 2, that really comes down to having
the maps done, and hopefully, the maps--as I understand it,
they are going to be done relatively quickly. But if you move
the goalpost on the first part, then the maps unravel and you
have got to restart the data collection or you have got to try
and figure out how to recontain that and repopulate it for
different purposes, and you restart that timeframe.
So I disagree with doing that because then you just--you
don't get to RDOF phase 2. You don't get to those areas. And
these are the areas--not the hardest to reach, not in terms of
we know there is absolutely no one in a block. These are the
places where they are partially served blocks.
There is a house or a location or in many locations, but
part of the block is not being served, and how do we deal with
that? And that is having accurate maps, and it is not by moving
the goalposts.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you.
I want to yield the rest of my time to Mr. Griffith if he
would--Morgan, would you accept that? OK.
Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope that in the end, this
is a bipartisan bill because as you know, we are famous for
bipartisanship in this committee. And for it to become law, of
course, we need the other chamber as well. So thank you very
much for the input. I yield the rest of my time to Mr.
Griffith.
Mr. Griffith. Thank you very much. I appreciate it, Gus.
Mr. Moniz, you and I have discussed in the past the
importance of the U.S. maintaining its leadership in clean
fossil fuel technologies because coal will be around globally
for decades. As you note in your testimony, carbon capture
utilization and sequestration will play an important role in
the future. How important will permiting reforms be in getting
CCUS projects off the ground?
Dr. Moniz. Yes. Thank you. There is no question that I
remain convinced, and many others like the International Energy
Agency, that carbon capture and sequestration will need to be a
central technology complementing renewables and nuclear and
others.
The permiting issue, you put your finger on one of the
major issues. A CCS project can be very complex in terms of its
permiting requirements at Federal, State, and often local
levels as well. So what we need is at the Federal and at the
State levels, ways of streamlining, not short cutting, but
streamlining the permission process. We looked very carefully
in California as one example, and we found that there were
multiple permiting requirements that were not being pulled
together coherently, and that was a major obstacle to getting
projects done. So a very, very important issue.
Mr. Griffith. I yield back to Mr. Bilirakis.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
Mr. McNerney is next.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the chairman. I thank the
witnesses. It is great to hear you all and see you all again.
Mr. Wheeler, my Republican colleagues tend to focus on
deregulating the infrastructure signing process and taking away
the local authority, believing that this is the silver bullet
that will bring broadband to everybody in the country.
Please, with a yes or no, Mr. Wheeler, will this approach
get us to a universal high-speed broadband access with the
option to every American in this country?
Mr. Wheeler. The way you outlined it, the answer is no.
Mr. McNerney. OK.
Mr. Wheeler. There are--the problem is, Mr. McNerney, one
thing is that each side comes in. The industry says, ``This is
my wish list, I want all of this.'' Some folks come in and say,
``Not in my back yard, I want all of this.'' We need to be
working to how do we get to common ground.
Mr. McNerney. OK. Well, thank you, Mr. Wheeler.
My district includes the City of Stockton. It is kind of
close to Silicon Valley, but it is very different. It is a low-
income area. A few years ago, the city wanted to build an open-
access, fiber-based broadband network, but the startup the city
was relying on went under and the project wasn't able to move
forward.
Now, I recently introduced the Broadband Infrastructure
Financing and Innovation Act, BIFIA, now included in LIFT, that
would provide $5 billion in Federal funding for low-interest
financing of eligible broadband infrastructure deployment
projects.
Can you explain, Mr. Wheeler, as briefly as possible, why
the BIFIA program would help for open access projects like the
one the City of Stockton was hoping to do?
Mr. Wheeler. Well, BIFIA opens up for multiple uses, but
for instance one of the uses that it could be put to is funding
the middle mile to connect to the Stockton project, funding the
Stockton project.
Let me--this is apropos of that. I need to correct
something that Commissioner O'Rielly has now said twice which
is incorrect, which is how the maps have to be redone. What we
are talking about when we are talking about ``maps,'' quote/
unquote, are not maps. This is not an atlas that you take off
the shelf and turn to a certain page. This is a database.
This has to be a quasi-real-time, ongoing database that
matches the lines of the companies and 160 million residences
and businesses and keeps evolving. It is not a frozen document.
That capability is what needs to be available and I believe
will be available at the time that the Congress makes the
funding available, and that is important for BIFIA.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Well, in your testimony, you
stated that the other great failure of our national policy is
how low-income Americans may have broadband passing through
their front door--in front of their front door--but don't bring
it inside. This is the case for too many of my constituents.
They either can't afford it or they don't have the digital
literacy skills.
I introduced the Digital Equity Act with Representative
Clarke, also included in LIFT, would be used to fund a wide
range of digital equity projects. In a few sentences, please,
why is it critical that we address gaps in broadband adoption
and broadband literacy?
Mr. Wheeler. So Pew did a great study on why people who
could, don't subscribe. First, about half of them was about
cost, but there was also understanding, fear, lack of
equipment, and intimidation. One of the great things that the
LIFT Act does is to--and your bill does is to move to the
States the opportunity to work with the people that they are
closest to to help overcome some of those obstacles.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Dr. Moniz, it is great to see you again, and I am glad that
you are continuing in the field.
In your testimony, you highlighted cybersecurity as it
relates to energy infrastructure. This is something I care a
lot about. How concerned should we be about the growing cyber
threats to our Nation's grid infrastructure?
Dr. Moniz. Well, I definitely think we should be concerned.
Mr. McNerney, by the way, good to see you as well. Again, for
example, the solar winds event, as I have already said, really
should catch our attention. It was undetected for so long. It
was found only because it wandered into one of the
cybersecurity companies, and it has certainly penetrated the
cloud. And I am not sure we even know today exactly what all of
those issues are.
So I think the Department of Energy is doing a good job,
actually, with its ESEC process, but the issue is in the
utility space. There are clearly very variable capabilities.
So I think that the Department and the Department of
Homeland Security could really increase their assistance,
especially to some of the smaller utilities that don't have
quite the capabilities of the large IOUs.
Mr. McNerney. All right. Thank you.
Dr. Moniz. And I might add not only for the electric grid
but also especially for the interactions and interdependencies,
for example, with the gas grid.
Mr. McNerney. Certainly. Certainly.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
Representative Johnson, Bill Johnson, is next.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. O'Rielly, it is really good to see you again. Thanks
for being with us today. You know, Chairman Wheeler in his
opener said in reference to the Lifeline program that a law
designed for telephones doesn't work for broadband. This
demonstrates his extreme ambivalence on these important issues
because he has consistently advocated for regulating broadband
under those old laws, to regulate them as a utility.
So do you agree that laws designed for telephones doesn't
work for broadband?
Mr. O'Rielly.
Mr. O'Rielly. Yes. I would agree that we shouldn't use old
statutes that aren't applicable for these purposes. I have
supported Lifeline in the past. I think we should migrate away
from that. Something like an EBB makes a lot more sense or
something that Tom was talking about on affordability, but your
point is very well taken. He wants the positives and not the
negatives.
I do want to address the one point he made in terms of
maps, and I apologize for using up some seconds of your time.
The maps are static, and they reflect what it looks like at a
given moment. The data is not coming in on a constant basis, so
new houses that are or new locations that are deployed are not
constantly populating into the commission database. It is not
something that is living and breathing. It is something you
could make to do that, but that would be incredibly burdensome
on the providers to do so.
And so when I am suggesting the maps need to be done, it is
the data that may have to be recollected or at a minimum the
data that is there will have to be reanalyzed and set to these
new standards. And I apologize for using your time.
Mr. Johnson. That is OK. I have heard that if new programs
open up to eligibility to areas that lack service at 100
megabits per second upload and download, more than half the
country would be considered unserved, which means that funding
is now eligible for half the country. That sounds like the
exact opposite of what needs to happen to target funding to
truly unserved areas.
If broadband funding is available in areas that don't have
100 megabits per second symmetrical service, doesn't that mean
that the funding is most likely to be used for upgrading places
that already have broadband while rural consumers continue to
wait at the back of the line to get service?
Mr. O'Rielly. Absolutely. The dollars will flow to those
areas that are easier and cheaper to upgrade and provide a
greater return on investment. And I have been to your district,
and I have seen how hard the geography is. I have seen the
mountainous regions and how you have many of your consumers and
many of your constituents who would be happy to have broadband
at 25/3 who have nothing today. I remember being at the school.
It had no wireless connection in your district. And so when
people say we want 100/100, I am very mindful of the areas that
I have visited such as your district and how they and many
consumers have nothing. They are at the back of the line.
Mr. Johnson. Well, I know you are kind of alluding to it.
You are kind of alluding to it. So what does that mean for
digital equity? It seems like that would be going in the wrong
direction.
Mr. O'Rielly. I would think so. I would think that the
hardest-to-reach parts of rural America will take longer to
implement, and we will have to see if the dollars stretch as
far as they want to, depending on what is the funding level.
But the priority will be the other areas that are easy to
serve. And the consumers, in terms of equity, I would suggest
the consumers that have been left off before will continue to
be left off.
Mr. Johnson. OK. Continuing with you, Mr. O'Rielly, the
COVID-19 pandemic shined a really bright light on the
devastating impact of social isolation, particularly with our
senior population. Everything from remote working, distance
learning, the need for telehealth, nowhere was that seen more
clearly than in our Nation's senior care settings.
So do you agree that investment should also be made in
broadband connectivity for senior care facilities? Not only
would this investment save the healthcare system critical
dollars in the future, but it could ultimately save lives
should safe isolation be required in the future. What do you
think?
Mr. O'Rielly. Well, you make a lot of sense. I haven't
analyzed the cost of doing so, and that is something that you
have in your capable hands, I don't have in mine in terms of
policymaker, but it makes a lot of sense. My mom's in a center
today, and broadband was very critical to try and keep her
connected as she has some serious health issues.
Mr. Johnson. Well, I am sorry to hear that about your mom,
but I absolutely believe we have got to be very, very careful
on all of these issues that we are talking about, the
unintended consequences of going 100/100 symmetrical and what
that will do to locking out rural America and especially with
seniors that live in rural America that really enjoyed the
expansion of telehealth. And I really appreciate my colleagues
like Doris Matsui that has worked with me so strongly on
telehealth issues. Thanks, Mr. O'Rielly.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
The next Member is Peter Welch. Peter, you are recognized.
Mr. Welch. Yes. Thank you. Pardon me. Thank you very much.
I have some quick questions for an incredible panel. I really
appreciate every one of you.
Dr. Frieden, I want to go back to you. I totally am in
support of your view that we have to have regular and steady
funding for public health and for primary care. I want to ask a
question. I am truly shocked at the failure of our Congress,
Republican or Democrat, to start addressing the extraordinarily
high cost to healthcare in our country. It is brutal. It means
that taxpayers are hammered, employers are hammered, and so are
individuals. Workers lose wages.
Is it the right way to go that we just put more money into
a place where I do agree we need it, primary and public health,
without addressing what I regard as the totally out of control
and unsustainable cost in the healthcare system?
Dr. Frieden. Well, if I may, Congressman, I will enter into
the record two articles I wrote just 2 weeks ago published
about this very topic. I think we can control healthcare costs.
It is shocking. We pay more for less life expectancy, for more
disabilities than any other country in the world, and there are
ways to fix that. Those include a payment system that rewards
health, not volume of care.
[The articles are included with Mr. Frieden's prepared
statement.]
Mr. Welch. Right. I agree with that. I will distribute
those articles to the committee with the Chair's permission,
but thank you.
Second. Secretary Moniz, very good to see you. I just want
to report that those tight, small tiny homes that you visited,
they are doing great here in Vermont. Super energy efficient.
Dr. Moniz. Great.
Mr. Welch. Mr. McKinley and I had Hope for Homes--it had
been helpful in the past--that would provide incentives to
homeowners, $2,000 if they did retrofitting that reduced by 20
percent what the energy consumption was, $4,000 if it were 40
percent. Do you continue to advocate as one of your
comprehensive approaches strong commitment to energy efficiency
that creates local jobs and saves on carbon emissions and saves
people money?
Dr. Moniz. Absolutely. It is the best investment we can
make, and typically we do see typically north of 20 percent
energy savings, so it is great. As I said earlier, I would even
like to expand it further to other things like local and public
buildings and the like for energy efficiency gains. But
starting with residential certainly is----
Mr. Welch. Thank you. Yes. And we have had some good
bipartisan support on that.
Mr. Wheeler, you know, I listened to Mr. O'Rielly, and
actually I take quite seriously his cautionary observations
because, when you have a big program and you can get money out,
there is an excitement to just, quote, ``get something done.''
But my understanding of what we are doing here is essentially
making the public decision in LIFT America Act that was made in
the 1930s with electricity. We have to have high-speed
broadband.
First of all, is there a reason that we would not want to
have symmetrical speeds in rural areas just as when in the
1930s we didn't have a different kind of second-rate
electricity that couldn't keep up with the progress that was
being made? Can you address that?
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Mr. Welch. I am at a loss as to why
there ought to be second-class service for anyone, particularly
when 80 percent of America can get a gigabit. But there is a
misassumption that has percolated through this discussion about
this back-of-the-line business.
The 2017 study that we did that said how much would it cost
to build fiber to every home--every home, not just those that
are picked and chosen, every home--was $80 billion. And if I am
the CEO of a small telephone company in Vermont and I have got
an unserved area next to me that I would like to get revenue
out of, and the Federal Government says to me, ``We will pay
you a subsidy to build that out to urban-quality standards,''
and I say no to that, I ought to be fired. And my understanding
of what LIFT does is like our 2017 study that says this is what
it takes to connect everybody to urban-quality broadband.
Mr. Welch. Thank you very much. I yield back. My time is
up, but I thank all the panelists. They were terrific.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Welch.
Next is Congressman Long, Billy Long.
Mr. Long. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for
being here today. And before I start my line of questioning, I
would like to paraphrase something that Ronald Reagan once
said. He said that the trouble with our liberal friends is not
that they are uninformed, it is just that they know so much
that isn't true, and I think something that was said earlier by
Mr. Doyle kind of falls into that category.
Mr. Doyle said that--he made kind of an accusation about
NextGen 9-1-1, that Republicans, you know--what he said, you
know, that us not being supportive and whatever, but
Republicans were very supportive of moving forward on NextGen
9-1-1, and we were working diligently with our Democrat
friends. We really, really were. And we were working in earnest
until they walked away, literally, the night before they
dropped the LIFT Act. So I think that is more accurate of what
actually happened here.
I have a question here for Commissioner O'Rielly. This
legislation, the LIFT Act, tilts the preference for the Federal
money towards projects that will delay open-access broadband
service networks. If an area already is so uneconomic to serve
that it requires government subsidies to sustain even one
provider, what are the impacts of favoring projects in this
way, and is that an efficient way to use Federal dollars?
Mr. O'Rielly. Well, it is going to make the cost of those
networks more expensive. It may introduce, you know, potential
competitors to an area that can't support them, and that
becomes, you know, uneconomical, depending on the provider.
But I do need to respond to Tom's previous point. I didn't
suggest that they wouldn't get--that the rural areas today
wouldn't be addressed. I said that they would be addressed
later because the earlier, the easier areas would be tackled
first. And it is one thing to talk about a small company in
Vermont. It is another to talk about larger companies that
serve greater areas and where they are going to upgrade first
and where the dollars are going to flow, and that is my point
that he seems to miss.
Mr. Wheeler. Well, the dollars flow to the unserved areas,
Mike. You set the standards, and then they flow.
Mr. Long. It is my turn. It is my time.
And I am concerned that some of the funding conditions on
the preferences in this bill such as State regulation, open-
access requirements will mean that fewer qualified broadband
providers will apply for the funding. And still with Mr.
O'Rielly, isn't that the opposite of what we need to serve
rural America, much of which I represent here in the Seventh
District of Missouri?
Mr. O'Rielly. I would absolutely agree.
Mr. Long. And what changes do you suggest to make to this
bill to be more effective to close that digital divide that we
hear so much about?
Mr. O'Rielly. Well, I would focus on a laser perspective on
those that don't have service today, 25/3, figure out how to
get them, and we already have programs that are working. We
need to finish the work that the Commission is doing. That
means upgrading the maps and dealing with the programs.
If additional funding--I wouldn't put $80 billion for it. I
think that the ecosystem can't handle it, and I would say that
the symmetrical speeds that we have been debating don't make
any sense. And it is not because I want one part of the
population to have--another part of the population have less.
It is that you don't need 100 and 100, and you don't need
symmetrical speeds for the current activities and even the
growth of the current activities. So to go to symmetrical
speeds makes no sense, in my opinion.
Mr. Long. Yes. The LIFT Act includes an additional $6
billion for emergency broadband program subsidy. Congress
authorized $3.2 billion at the end of last year in a bipartisan
manner in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, not for a
permanent subsidy program, and that program is not yet up and
running.
What are some concerns about Congress authorizing more
money for a program without first understanding what the need
is, especially as we restart opening schools and our economy
with the new CDC guidelines saying 3 feet of social distance is
sufficient?
Mr. O'Rielly. Well, that--look it, I think the program, you
know, get it up and running, and figure out where the problems
are and if it is working before you add--you know, double its
cost or double the amount of money going for it. I mean, if you
compare it to Lifeline, which maybe is running last year maybe
$800 million, this is four times as large as the money that
Congress has already appropriated on a bipartisan basis and
then add another $6 billion. I would just say get the program
up and operational and figure out the problems before you add
new money, but that is for you to make the decision.
Mr. Long. OK. Well, I appreciate that.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Pallone. All right. Thank you, Billy.
Next is--Paul Tonko is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to quickly highlight a couple of provisions that we
might call environmental infrastructure, but I think we will
see these are as critical to job creation and our economic
growth as anything in this bill.
So, Dr. Frieden, forgive me if this is a little beyond the
scope of your testimony, but how important is safe drinking
water to our Nation's public health?
Dr. Frieden. Safe drinking water is very important, and it
is one of those areas of infrastructure that hasn't been
adequately supported. There are significant problems in urban
and rural areas, places ranging from Alaska to Florida, and it
is a problem that is likely to increase because of changes in
our environment.
Let me just make one broader comment, if I may. From my
perspective, having been a city health commissioner and working
in my organization more than 40 countries around the world,
most governments have a capital budget and an expense budget.
The U.S. Government doesn't have that. If we had that,
investments in infrastructure would be much easier to maintain,
but I certainly agree that drinking water is crucially
important for health.
Mr. Tonko. Well, thank you. And so if we improve water
quality by investing in treatment facilities and getting lead
pipes out of our systems, will that have a positive public
health benefit?
Dr. Frieden. Absolutely. The lead service line replacement
issue is one that has really stressed public health for
decades. The cost is high to replace them. And it is an example
of what happens if a technology that is used turns out not to
be safe. But the sooner we get lead down, not only will we have
less health problems, but the societal and economic benefits of
reducing exposure to lead are quite substantial.
Mr. Tonko. Well, you say the cost is high, but then is it
safe to say we will create jobs building that infrastructure?
Dr. Frieden. The actual act of--the actual work of
replacing the lead service lines will be an employment
generator. In addition, there is strong evidence that suggests
that lower lead levels are associated with higher economic
productivity and activity in the people who are no longer
having their brains poisoned by low levels of lead.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much.
Secretary Moniz, great to see you. This bill also has money
to remediate formerly used industrial sites known as
brownfields, many of which are good candidates for renewable
energy projects. Is putting brownfields back into productive
use a good investment?
Dr. Moniz. It certainly is, and it also often has very,
very strong environmental justice components as well. One of
the approaches that I particularly like for brownfields is
community solar because often, especially in disadvantaged
communities, there aren't roofs to put solar panels on in any
practical way, for example. And community solar is a wonderful
way of serving these communities using brownfields, perhaps a
couple of megawatts at a brownfield site. Also, when done well,
employing some of the local citizens in those projects.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And the LIFT America Act also makes
significant investments in zero-emission vehicle
infrastructure, including a bill that I authored to provide
rebates to build charging stations to workplaces, multifamily
apartments, and publicly accessible locations. So Secretary
Moniz, we know most EV drivers primarily charge at home. But as
more people adapt to EVs, will it be important to provide more
charging options?
Dr. Moniz. Yes. In fact, we are doing a study in New York
City, and just basically in the center of New York City we see
the need for about a half a million charging stations. But, of
course, urban environments, suburban environments, and rural
environments will need very, very different architectures. But
we need them all because it has to be an integrated system were
people with EVs have the confidence to be able to drive as they
need to, whether it is for work or for pleasure or for vacation
and the like.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Are workplaces in publicly accessible
locations such as grocery stores and public buildings good
complements to ongoing EV infrastructure buildout for at-home
charging and fast charging along long distance and interstate
corridors?
Dr. Moniz. It is absolutely essential because otherwise we
will be limiting the market when we know that EVs are already
economically competitive with internal combustion engines. So
it would be the height of unfairness, frankly, to exclude the
charging infrastructure to those who could benefit from those
vehicles with their lowering costs.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you so much.
With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Tonko.
Next is Dr. Bucshon.
Mr. Buschon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
This committee has a strong history of working across the
aisle, crafting real and helpful legislation for the betterment
of the American people and consumer. This partisan bill expands
authorizations leading to massive taxpayer spending during a
time when Americans are trying to return to normal life, and I
think that is unfortunate.
Two Congresses ago I had a bill, H.R. 2872, the Promoting
Hydro at Existing Nonpowered Dams Act, that became law. This
bipartisan legislation created real-world change for the
betterment of the American people. It cut through the red tape
and instructed FERC to create an expanded permiting process.
The clean energy resource provides benefits in the form of
jobs, economic investment, and improved public health. EIA
reported that, as of December 2020, 39 nonpowered dams and 305
megawatts of capacity are planned for commercial operation as a
result, which is an increase from 2018.
The United States has been a leader in reducing its
emissions, and in order to continue that leadership, advancing
technology and innovation is key. However, this legislation
lacks any meaningful permiting or licensing reforms to remove
barriers to deploying new technologies, thus, in my view,
stifling innovation.
Instead of rushing to yet another partisan costly and
duplicative package through the process, we should all be
working with the Biden administration to implement the
appropriations from the Energy Act of 2020. The bipartisan
provisions included $35 billion of R&D and grants and technical
assistance programs for developing and deploying clean energy
and reducing emissions.
Let's work together on bipartisan bills that actually
improve our Nation's infrastructure, provide greater broadband
access to rural America, pave the way for reliability and
resilient electrical grid, and make electricity affordable for
all Americans.
With that in mind, Commissioner O'Rielly, are you aware of
anything in the bill that will actually cut through the
bureaucratic red tape and allow for a more streamlined
permiting and licensing process, which will lead to greater
innovation and more efficient broadband buildout?
Mr. O'Rielly. On the communication side, those provisions
didn't seem to make the cut as of yet. But I have endorsed the
package that is 28 different bills, and there are more ideas
that should be included. It is not an all-or-nothing thing.
I think my colleague, my former colleague, has suggested
that we are trying to deregulate our way to network build, and
that is not right. But they are a critical point to reform and
they need to be addressed, or all you are going to get is
litigation, which we have dealt with and the commission has
tried to deal with for such a long time. And these problems
need to be addressed and should be addressed here in this bill.
Mr. Buschon. Let me just say as far as my bill, the hydro
bill goes, we went from a process potentially of 10 to 12 years
to convert a nonhydroelectric dam to a hydroelectric dam, and
our bill has cut that down to about a 2-year process and it
hasn't taken anything offline as far as the review process. It
has just forced FERC to actually make a decision and to get the
decision--up or down, to get that decision out there.
So I firmly believe that, unless we do those things, we can
have all the programs we want, but if it takes 10 or 12 years
or longer to develop any kind of infrastructure project, what
part of the private sector is going to play with us, play in
that ballpark, right? They just can't. They just can't do it
economically.
Also, Commissioner O'Rielly, in light of broadband funding,
subsidies from the FCC's USF program, USDA, and now the
Treasury Department allowable use funds to States, what
modifications to the new FCC program proposed in the LIFT Act
do you think are needed to ensure broadband companies can meet
the obligations of this program in light of other programs
potentially subsidizing the same areas?
Mr. O'Rielly. Well, I think you are going to have
overbuilding of Federal programs. And I am just unclear how
that is going to work, how the $80 billion in the LIFT Act--or
the LIFT America Act--would operate when you just put--when
Congress just put all of this money through these other funding
sources for different standards. I just don't know how that is
going to be coordinated.
First of all, the coordination is poor, but even then I
don't even know how these would act. And I would say that the
LIFT Act seems to wipe away most Federal programs through the
FCC programs in favor of its own.
Mr. Buschon. Yes. I mean, you know, the Federal Government
has a tendency of putting a lot of money out there that people
actually can't use, you know. I mean, this is common across the
Federal Government. We do that to the agency--we do that to
parts of our economy all the time.
It seems to me that we want to ask people who are actually
in the game, ``Hey, what actual amount of money do you need to
do what we are proposing, we are asking you to do?'' And so my
concern is, as is yours, is that this kind of funding is--it
may not actually be necessary, or they can't use it.
I represent a very rural district--I just want to say this
in closing, Mr. Chairman--and broadband access is critical. You
can't have economic development, you can't do telehealth
medicine, and you can't do distance learning if you don't have
it.
So I am hopeful whatever we do here in Congress that we
find a bipartisan solution to that problem.
I yield back.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
Next is Congressman Cardenas.
Mr. Cardenas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
thank all the Members for attending this important hearing,
also to the ranking member.
It is our responsibility as we build for the future to
provide a safe, sustainable environment for everyone today,
especially for our children and grandchildren and future
generations. In Los Angeles, we continue to work on reducing
emissions so we can breathe cleaner air. That includes
investing in our public transportation, which will greatly
benefit families in the San Fernando Valley and throughout the
region. The LIFT America Act includes language from my bill,
Clean Commute for Kids Act, language that will help provide
communities with zero-emission schoolbus fleets.
There are nearly 500,000 schoolbuses across our great
country. Nearly 95 percent of America's school buses run on
diesel--yes, diesel--a fossil fuel that has been shown to cause
numerous health problems, including asthma, bronchitis, and
cancer. And the most vulnerable among us are our seniors and
children when it comes to health effects of things that cause
cancer.
Transitioning to cleaner buses would prevent the release of
5.3 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions each year to
protect our children and their lungs and to keep our diesel
fumes out of the air and inside of our schoolbuses and also to
have a better benefit for the world at large. The LIFT America
Act puts our goal to transition the entire fleet to zero-
emission buses over the next decade. This is the most
aggressive attempt for us to do the right thing in America for
our children and for the environment.
Secretary Moniz, transitioning to clean schoolbuses
includes the cost of the bus, which is currently around
$300,000 each bus. The cost of buying and installing charging
infrastructure and the cost of training employees in the new
technology, the LIFT America Act authorizes grants for all of
these costs and also includes strong Buy America language for
the schoolbus program.
LIFT America authorizes $650 million over the next 5 years
to begin this transition, but recently the World Resources
Institute wrote a letter noting that this amount would
definitely not be adequate.
Mr. Secretary, would you agree with me that Congress needs
to commit significantly more funds if we are trying to
transition the fleet over the next decade?
Mr. Moniz. I would, sir. The electric buses are having
their costs come down rapidly. Charging these fleets is a
natural, and frankly, there would be some environmental justice
benefits as well in many, many cases.
Mr. Cardenas. OK. So it is multiple benefits, not just the
children.
Dr. Moniz. Yes.
Mr. Cardenas. How would--yes. And how would a significantly
higher financial commitment from the Federal Government paired
with the Buy America requirement influence the private sector's
decisionmaking regarding investing in manufacturing capacity
here at home, including for components like batteries?
Dr. Moniz. We need to really up the game in our supply
chain for these vehicles. Right now, electric buses are
dominant in China. We would like to get a domestic supply chain
here for the vehicles and for the batteries.
It is encouraging on the battery side that we are seeing
many new battery factories going up to serve the EV, the light-
duty vehicle market. But, of course, they would also serve the
electric bus market.
And the bus market has not only the schoolbus market but,
of course, urban buses would also be quite natural if we can
build our supply chain.
Mr. Cardenas. Yes. Thank you. The LIFT Act also includes
language from my bill the Affordable Solar Energy for our
Communities Act. This language provides funding for community
solar installations for underserved communities as well.
Everybody who wants to have a safer and cleaner environment
should be able to participate.
Secretary Moniz, in addition to helping increase access to
clean energy, can you please talk about the role of small solar
installations like community solar in our energy transition?
Dr. Moniz. Yes. Again, as I said earlier, I am a big fan of
community solar. Certainly in many underserved communities,
there is very limited opportunity, even if you had the
resources, to do a rooftop solar installation. So this way, in
those communities you could in effect own a piece of a 1- or 2-
megawatt facility and lower your energy bills typically.
So I think this is a major opportunity. And going back to
the earlier question, it also would link in with a brownfields
program.
Mr. Cardenas. Thank you. The LIFT Act is something that we
should move forward, and I support it wholeheartedly. And also
I think that we have had the worst example of bad government
when it comes to Texas and the failure for them to require
redundancy in their systems and to make sure that they do not
fail the people.
So with that, I will yield back my time.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
And now we go to Congressman Walberg for 5 minutes.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me first echo my colleagues in recognizing how deeply
troubling it is that the majority has decided to forego some
bipartisanship in working on an issue that we can all agree on,
I truly believe, investing in our Nation's infrastructure,
instead of reaching out to Republicans to find areas of common
ground. There was a decision, I guess, to introduce a partisan
wish list that lacks the very basic principles of good
government.
While the provisions in the package appear well intended,
many of them actually undermine the larger objectives that this
bill seeks to address. For example, while setting lofty
standards for higher broadband speeds and trying to futureproof
network technology, which is a good thing, the reality is that
this provision in this bill would actually drain limited
resources to upgrade existing networks rather than expanding
underserved areas.
I am also disappointed that there has been a decision to
abandon our previous bipartisan work on NextGen 9-1-1 services.
NG 9-1-1 is critical for the safety and security of our
communities, yet 9-1-1 dispatchers in my district and in the
State have raised serious concerns that provisions in this bill
would strand millions of dollars in taxpayer investment over
the last decade.
Let me start by saying that expanding broadband to rural
America is vital, and as someone who was recently connected to
the internet, thanks to the Connect America Fund, I understand
how important it is that we use our dollars wisely. The bill--
--
Mr. Pallone. Did we lose Tim? Did we lose--now I can. Now I
can't. I can't hear him. Is anybody else hearing him? Now we
can hear you. Go ahead.
Mr. Walberg. We will do our best.
Mr. Pallone. I don't know if--it appears that you have lost
me again. Now we can hear you again.
Mr. Walberg. Let me move closer to the screen. Maybe that
will do that.
Mr. Pallone. And ask your question, and then go ahead.
Mr. Walberg. The question is this: Commissioner O'Rielly, I
have heard concerns that this program could be used to
overbuild existing broadband networks with fiscal
infrastructure that are, in many cases, already funded by other
Federal programs. Does this bill have sufficient safeguards to
address this concern?
Mr. O'Rielly. I don't believe so. I don't----
Mr. Pallone. I think he asked it, Mike. You can answer.
Mr. O'Rielly. OK. I will answer. I don't believe the bill
addresses that, and I worry the money that is invested in other
Federal programs is either going to be wasted or conflict and
definitely lead to the point of overbuilding, to subsidized
overbuilding. Overbuilding is fine. It is competition. But
subsidized overbuilding is incredibly problematic and harmful
to those that don't have service.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you. Two years ago, I talked about the
disastrous, heavy-handed Title 2 net neutrality regulations
would destroy proconsumer service offerings like sponsored data
plans, and now a California net neutrality law has done exactly
that. Once again, it looks like heavy-handed regulations like
those in this bill are poised to hurt consumers.
Commissioner O'Rielly, can you talk about how the heavy-
handed regulations in the bill's Title 1, subtitle C broadband
programs would prevent small providers from being able to
participate and undermine their ability to bring broadband to
rural Americans like mine?
Mr. O'Rielly. I think the bill has a number of
requirements, and you outlined one section. I think there are a
number of requirements that will make certain providers not
want to participate or unwilling to participate or unable to
participate. And the California example highlights that
situation. The zero ratings, for instance, in a case that
California has as part of its prohibition, is something where
big providers and small are not going to be able to--they are
going to have to change their practices because of.
And then that, to me, is a detriment to actually getting
all and having many competitors in the space that we want to
compete for these dollars and having a full-on competitive
bidding situation.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you. Moving to 9-1-1, Commissioner
O'Rielly, what would be the impact to States like Michigan who
have already spent over a decade investing in planning and
executing NG 9-1-1 if we were to restrict existing technologies
from being used?
Mr. O'Rielly. Yes. I am not sure why the bill goes in this
direction. I am worried. We tried flexibility, bipartisan
structure in the Spectrum Act of 2012 to make sure that the
States had an ability to work through their system, and need is
so important in this equation.
And I have visited those call centers, many visited during
my time period at the commission. And I am leery if they are
saying there is a problem in the States that the value of the
dollar that they are investing and also the program direction
they are going is being federalized. I think that is incredibly
problematic and should be reviewed.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
Next is Dr. Ruiz.
Mr. Ruiz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am actually wearing my
white coat today because I am actively participating in
vaccinating some of our hardest-hit, highest-risk community
members in my hometown of Coachella. So, if you see me wearing
my white coat, it is not without its context.
The LIFT America Act that we are considering here today
will help our Nation build back better and deliver much needed
infrastructure improvements for our districts. There are a
couple key parts of this bill that I would like to touch on
today. The first issue is ensuring that Tribal nations----
Mr. Pallone. Well, we lost your voice. I don't know if he
is muted or what happened. Can't hear you. We may have to come
back to him. Former FEC Commissioners are not allowed to laugh.
All right. We will have to come back to him.
Next is--I guess it is--Debbie's not on. Debbie's there.
All right. We will go to Ms. Dingell next, and then we will
come back. Debbie.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Chairman Pallone, and thank you
for hosting this hearing.
As we look to shift from relief to long-term economic
recovery from the COVID pandemic, we have got a real
opportunity to make bold investments in our infrastructure, to
build back better and at the same time rapidly transition to a
clean net-zero economy that will support good-paying American
jobs, protect public health and the environment, and invest in
frontline communities, allowing all of us to thrive.
I am proud that this bill has a number of my legislative
priorities and bills, including the dam and hydropower safety
establishing a green financing accelerator, and makes
investments in electric vehicles manufacturing retooling,
expands the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing program,
and helps deploy a network--it helps deploy the EV
infrastructure that we desperately need in this country.
Secretary Moniz, I am talking fast because I would like to
move right to some questions focused on the future of electric
vehicles and the clean energy and sustainability accelerator as
we aim to rebuild our Nation's infrastructure and economy.
And as you know, several of our auto manufacturers have
said that they are committed to an EV future, but that means
three things. We have got to build consumer confidence, which
means they have to be able to afford the car, they need a
battery that has got range, and they need to know that they can
charge it when they are out there.
So my first question to you is how would--so, and you noted
in your testimony today's domestic battery manufacturing
capacity is thanks, in part, to DOE's Advanced Technology
Vehicles Manufacturing or ATVM loan program. The ATVM program
still has $17 billion in lending authority.
The LIFT America Act and the standalone legislation I will
be introducing soon would expand and modernize the ATV programs
to include low- and zero-emission medium- and heavy-duty
vehicles and make it easier for component manufacturers to
qualify. LIFT America would also update and reauthorize DOE's
Domestic Manufacturing Conversion Grant Program at $2.5 billion
per year.
So my questions for you are how would these revitalized
programs help with our economic recovery, increase domestic
manufacturing of clean energy supply chains, and that is
something we really have to talk about. We need to build those
batteries here, not overseas. Those jobs need to be here. And
three, accelerate the deployment of clean energy
infrastructure. Thank you.
Dr. Moniz. Well, thank you, Mrs. Dingell. It is good to see
you again. Well, you have put your finger right on it. First of
all, the ATVM program, for those who are not familiar, really
helped a couple of major battery production factories to be
built. And modernizing through the LIFT Act the ability to
support supply chain, EV supply chain development, I think is
really right on.
And I might say that, quite bluntly, the last 4 years have
seen the loan program pretty much on hold. Secretary Granholm
has appointed an excellent, experienced investor to head the
program now, and I believe that it will be very, very active,
and this area of transportation should be a focus.
And I think, just to repeat, the fact that our domestic
manufacturers are so committed in this direction, they have
made those business model choices. The cost of ownership is
going to equal and then drop below that of an internal
combustion engine. So I can see why GM and Ford, et cetera, are
saying that this is their future.
Mrs. Dingell. Let me ask you another quick question, and
then I have questions for the record. What do you think the
growing adoption of electric vehicles will mean for the grid,
which has come up in other questions? And, in addition to
charging infrastructure, what grid upgrades are needed to
support the increased demand? But we need to not complain about
needing to do it, we just need to do it for the future.
Dr. Moniz. No. In fact, I think we have heard some
statements here that, frankly, overstate the needs on the
grid--for one thing, because we will continue to see much more
efficiency, and this will contribute to some low growth for the
utilities. But we could also remember, the utilities are in the
lead in terms of decarbonization, so it kind of--it all fits
together in a sensible way.
The other thing is--and this is more speculative, I have to
admit--but we know that vehicle-to-grid integration will also
be part of the new infrastructure and can supply some new grid
services. So I think this is opportunity. To me, it is not a
concern.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you. And I guess I am out of time, Mr.
Chairman, although I am not sure I didn't have a little taken
away from. I yield back.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
We will go now to Congressman Palmer, who is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you. You know, as my colleagues have
said, billions of dollars in the Federal programs, and yet, we
are failing to address one of the biggest obstacles that we
have in terms of getting the infrastructure built that we need
just to maintain our economy, much less move to a cleaner
energy infrastructure.
Last week in our hearing, I asked a witness how long it
takes to get newer, cleaner infrastructure built. He stated
that underneath a Federal administration-related infrastructure
project takes upwards of 7 to 8 years just to get the paperwork
finished. A project to expand public transit outside of
Philadelphia has been underneath a review since 2012. I would
think if we want to encourage more people to use public transit
that we would make it a priority to get it built.
Now, these delays are not rare, and it doesn't only relate
to transportation infrastructure and other infrastructure. It
will relate to broadband as well. I asked the Army Corps of
Engineers to give me a list of outstanding feasibility studies,
and it took nearly 9 months for them to respond to that. And
when I did get it, I got a list of 97 studies that have been
underway for hundreds of months at the cost of millions of
dollars.
And my point about this is that, since some of my Democrat
colleagues have predicted that we only have 10 years before we
have a worldwide climate catastrophe, shouldn't we be looking
at ways to expedite our permiting process for infrastructure,
maybe for building nuclear power plants that have no
CO2 emissions? Mr. Moniz.
Dr. Moniz. Yes. I agree that, as I said earlier in the
context of CCS, and it is true in many other contexts, that we
often have too many serial permiting requirements. What we need
to have is at the Federal and State levels processes that
involve all the stakeholders. Again, do not cut corners, but
provide a coherence that allows the end-to-end permiting
process to be much shorter because, frankly, I would share the
concern that some of these processes are going on so long that
they conflict with the time scale in which we need to introduce
new technologies.
So I think that is a very important overarching issue, and
it is one where I think we need to have real serious coalition
building to bring together the different constituencies who
really have legitimate claims to be addressed in the permiting
process.
Mr. Palmer. That is one of the things that I worked on when
we were in the majority and I chaired the Subcommittee on
Intergovernmental Affairs, was getting rid of the duplicative,
the obsolete regulations. I would also think that we would do
well if we had a portal, where it was a one-stop shop for
permiting to expedite this, and not only for building an
infrastructure that my Democrat colleagues advocate but for
doing basic things like--for instance, there was a study
undertaken after a flood in 1983 in Louisiana to build a
diversion canal from the Comite River over to the Lilly Bayou,
and it took 38 years before anything was done, and that was
only after a devastating flood in 2016.
So I appreciate your candid and accurate response to that,
Secretary Moniz.
Dr. Moniz. In fact, if I could add, in some cases,
California, for example, does appoint one of the multiple
agencies to be the lead, so it really kind of coordinates it.
That is the kind of thing we need more of.
Mr. Palmer. If nothing else out of this hearing, I would
hope that we can come up with a productive solution to this. If
we are going to waste hundreds of billions of dollars, let's
build it as efficiently as we can.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
So now, I am going to try and go back. I see that Dr. Ruiz
has his lab coat on there. Can we hear you? You are recognized
again.
Mr. Ruiz. Now, can you hear me?
Mr. Pallone. Yes.
Mr. Ruiz. OK. Good. So let's get right to it. You know, I
already told you why I am wearing my lab coat. I am actually
vaccinating people outside. I am at a community vaccination
clinic in one of our hardest-hit, high-spread communities in my
district. So that is why I am wearing the white coat, just so I
didn't throw people off as to why in the hell am I wearing a
white coat during a congressional hearing, but it is because I
am doctoring right now out these doors.
The LIFT America Act that we are considering today will
help our Nation build back better and deliver much-needed
infrastructure improvements for our district. I want to talk
about two issues. One is the Tribal broadband prioritization in
order to help our Tribes get the state-of-the-art healthcare,
educational, and economic opportunities that exist. They have
been the least to be connected in America. What was already a
problem turned into a catastrophe once the pandemic hit. When
schools closed and in many cases the nearest hospital or
clinics was hours away and without robust connectivity, people
couldn't work remotely or take advantage of telehealth
services.
In 2018, as part of the RAY BAUM's Act, Congress enacted my
bill, the Tribal Broadband Deployment Act, that required the
FCC to study and report on Tribal broadband connectivity. When
the FCC finally issued its report in 2019, the data showed that
there isn't just a digital divide in Indian country, it is a
digital canyon. No matter what metrics you looked at, Tribal
lands have significantly lower access to broadband than non-
Tribal lands.
That is why the LIFT America Act is so important. This bill
will make historic investments to expand internet access to
increase economic and telehealth opportunity for Tribal
communities. To do this, the LIFT America Act includes my bill,
the Tribal Internet Expansion Act. It amends the Communications
Act to direct the FCC's Universal Service Fund to explicitly
prioritize Tribal lands along with rural and low-income areas.
In addition, the LIFT America Act, which I am pleased to
cosponsor, dedicates $500 million for Tribal connectivity and
sets aside funds to increase adoption in digital equity on
Tribal lands.
Chairman Wheeler, much needs to be done to ensure that
Tribal communities are fully connected, but in your opinion
will these provisions help increase broadband connectivity on
Tribal lands?
Mr. Wheeler. You are absolutely right, Congressman. Your
amendment--your bill--for instance, to amend Section 254 to
make it clear what the responsibility is in Tribal lands is
important. What the LIFT Act does also includes Tribal lands.
Let me just make one quick point about another provision of
the LIFT Act that is going to help Tribal lands and everybody
else, and that is the requirement for transparency. You know, I
spent a lot of time on Tribal lands when I was chairman, and
what I was finding was that they were kind of given a take-it-
or-leave-it choice for their local provider, and they didn't
know what other areas were being charged for similar service,
and the transparency that this bill does will help in that
regard too.
Mr. Ruiz. Thank you. Thank you very much.
The other area of this bill I wanted to highlight is a
section advancing residential solar energy for lower-income
communities. Climate change has most significantly affected
many lower-income communities, yet too many of the technologies
that will save our planet are still primarily available to
those with higher incomes. Production of clean, renewable
energy should be accessible to every community, regardless of
their ZIP Code or economic status.
Especially in my district where we experience over 350 days
of sunshine per year in southern California, Palm Springs area,
there is huge untapped potential for every community to harness
clean energy for their own homes.
Secretary Moniz, I want to talk to you specifically about
access and equity in the energy transition. The LIFT America
Act includes funding to build lower-income community solar
installations. Why is equitable access to clean energy
important? And how do we ensure that our transition is actually
equitable and inclusive? And, in addition to community solar,
what are other options that we can pursue?
Dr. Moniz. Well, Mr. Ruiz, certainly providing our
reliable, clean electricity and affordable electricity in
Tribal lands has always been a very, very high priority of
mine, because it is--well, it is the right thing to do and it
provides also the opportunity for education, for employment. It
is an equity issue.
In 2016, I was very pleased with bipartisan support to
finally get I think it was $11 million appropriated to provide
credit support for perhaps $100 million of loan programs for
energy projects on Tribal lands. I think it is time to employ
that, and frankly I would love to see that increased by an
order of magnitude.
Mr. Ruiz. Thank you very much.
And I yield back my time.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
Next is Congressman Dunn.
Mr. Dunn. Thank you very much, Chairman Pallone.
I think we can all agree that some Federal investment aimed
at improving our Nation's infrastructure is needed, and surely
every one of us can think of infrastructure needs specific to
our districts. I am disappointed, however, that this LIFT Act
lacks a bipartisan buy-in and, like the American Rescue Plan,
lacks targeted allocation of funds.
Has this committee taken the time to assess the status of
the trillions and trillions of dollars appropriated just last
year to many of the same departments and programs that the LIFT
Act would pour money into? I know that my Republican colleagues
and I have not seen an accounting of these unspent funds or the
timeline for spending those funds. So I would also hope, as
this committee engages in a thorough legislative process, that
we will see some data and analysis of the appropriated and
spent funds as well.
I would like to focus my questions on what appears to be
duplicative health policy in the LIFT Act.
Dr. Frieden, section 40001 in the LIFT Act requires the HHS
Secretary to develop standards for voluntary accreditation of
public health departments and labs. As you know, CLIA includes
Federal standards for all labs, and labs that perform higher
complexity testing are also issued accreditation approved by
CMS. In addition to these requirements, the National Public
Health Performance Standard, the Standards, accesses capacity
and performance of public health systems.
Given that all labs already comply with the aforementioned
requirements and the labs were put through the wringer last
year, why do we need a new set of standards for accreditation
of public health labs? What is the problem with the current
standards?
Dr. Frieden. Actually, Congressman, there are some gaps,
and I think accreditation can serve as a way of advancing
quality. Right now, there is something called the Public Health
Accreditation Board, and that board set up voluntary standards
for health departments, including public health laboratories.
And what we really found was that the vast majority aren't up
to speed, and so----
Mr. Dunn. You know, I would love to--in 5 minutes, we can't
answer that, but I would love to talk to somebody over there
about that offline because this is--or learn how----
Dr. Frieden. We would be happy to follow up with you,
Congressman. I think that the big picture is that accreditation
can set standards that can allow Congress and other funders to
hold entities accountable for where----
Mr. Dunn. I think we can do that, though, without adding
too much more red tape to our public labs, which I don't think
they need. So, if there is some problem, let's get what the
problem is and add that to the accreditation that we have.
I want to shift to section 40003, hospital infrastructure
funding. This section prioritizes grants for hospitals whose
projects will, quote, ``include by design public health
emergency preparedness and cybersecurity against cyber
threats,'' end quote.
Now, the already existing Hospital Preparedness Program is
a dedicated source of Federal funding for hospitals and health
systems to prepare for, respond to, and recover from all kinds
of threats, including cyber.
In your opinion, do you think that the existing Hospital
Preparedness Program is insufficient to address preparedness?
And, if so, why does focusing Hill-Burton program funding on
preparedness, why is that more appropriate than simply boosting
the existing Hospital Preparedness Program?
Dr. Frieden. The Hospital Preparedness Program has not been
run by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which
has directed that by what is called the ASPR, the Assistant
Secretary for Preparedness and Response. Funding for that
program has been substantially reduced over the past decade,
decade and a half, and I think quite--to be very blunt, that
the impact of that program has been limited. It is important
that it be focused, whether on this issue or others that
Congress decides. It is a possible route for funding that has
not been particularly effective in the past, and I think you
don't need to look any further than COVID to see that. And this
is one of the areas that a health defense operations approach
would allow you, Congress, to decide on. You could decide which
line----
Mr. Dunn. Sir, we are going to run out of time here, but I
just want to say this is two examples, among many, but it seems
to me the funds in this bill could be targeted more
specifically towards our goals. If the goal is to fund
preparedness activities and if the existing program is lacking
funds, then some of the funding in this bill could be
specifically targeted to, for instance, the Hospital
Preparedness Program.
Surely, we could find those funds somewhere in the $6
billion pot of money for open-ended--you know, for public
health infrastructure spending.
With that Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
Now we are going to go to the gentlewoman from New
Hampshire, Ms. Kuster.
Ms. Kuster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you again for
hosting this hearing.
I think it is really important for us to be addressing our
infrastructure that has been crumbling all across this country,
and right here in New Hampshire we have red-listed roads and
bridges. I understand the American Society of Civil Engineers
has given American infrastructure a C-minus. So, when Congress
fails to make these investments, ordinary Americans are left
holding the bag, unable to participate in the digital economy
or remote learning or home healthcare because of bad internet
connections.
But the LIFT Act makes important investments in improving
our infrastructure, including water infrastructure, and I
wanted to discuss a ``dam'' good idea that I have come across.
I am super excited about 2lst century hydropower and projects
to improve the vitality of our Nation's rivers. So this
morning, I led a letter with 39 of my colleagues, including
many on this committee, to the Biden administration to include
funding to rehabilitate, retrofit, and remove dams, the three
R's, in the next infrastructure package.
The letter is supported by both river conservation and
hydropower groups. It is built off of the Stanford University
Uncommon Dialogue Agreement that robust investments are needed
in the three R's to reduce carbon emissions, promote healthy
river ecosystems, and create jobs.
So, Secretary Moniz, I want to commend you and EFI for your
leadership on the three R's. And my first question to you is
this: Should the U.S. rehabilitate, retrofit, and remove dams
to bring the clean energy benefits of hydropower and the
environmental and economic benefits of healthy rivers to
fruition?
And that is----
Mr. Pallone. Secretary Moniz, you are muted, I think.
Dr. Moniz. Oops, thank you. Thank you.
I was thanking the Congresswoman for her leadership on this
``dam'' problem, as she referred to it.
This is a tremendous opportunity. And, by the way, we were
pleased to help. Stanford was really in the lead on this, but
we were pleased to help. But it is an opportunity for more
hydropower. It is an opportunity for healthier rivers. It is an
unusual coalition between conservationists and energy people.
It is just a perfect program, and I think we should move out on
this really, really fast.
Ms. Kuster. Great. That is why I call it a ``dam'' good
idea.
What type of Federal investment would be most effective for
increasing hydropower generation and electricity storage in
improving the health of our rivers? And if you might quickly
explain to my colleagues the benefits of storage with
hydropower.
Dr. Moniz. Yes. Well, today it is not commonly known that
pumped hydro storage, essentially pumping water up so you can
have it fall down and generate electricity when needed, is
actually the dominant storage technology today in this country.
But you need to have the right water resources, the right
topology, and maximizing that through this dams initiative--by
the way, we have about 90,000 dams in this country, some
powered, mostly unpowered, and some safe and some unsafe.
So this has all kinds of dimensions, from providing storage
for our wind and solar resources, to safety, to--I am a very
avid fly fisherman--to better ecosystems for cold-water
fisheries as well.
Ms. Kuster. Great. Well, thank you for that.
Quickly now I am going to shift gears a bit.
Mr. Wheeler, I want to quickly touch on high-speed
broadband. As Congress and the FCC look to deploy additional
resources, can you speak to the importance of first deploying
broadband to completely unserved communities?
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Congresswoman. That is a great
question.
One of the things we have learned today, you all--one of
the things about this body is you are representative. You are
also representative in what we have seen today in some of the
connectivity problems that this country has. And one of the
Members said earlier that we need to use the dollars wisely. I
think that is the point that you are making. We don't want to
have second-class service for rural areas, and the excuse that
somehow unserved areas are going to get to the back of the line
is just a figment. You run an auction, and you say, ``Y'all
come,'' and everybody gets the opportunity to come to
participate in that auction. And that is what can happen in
your State, in rural areas, and elsewhere.
Ms. Kuster. Terrific. Thank you so much.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
We now go to Congresswoman Lesko.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And for the witnesses,
I am a Congresswoman from Arizona. It is great to be in front
of you today and have you here.
I share the--I don't understand, I should say, why the
standard in this bill is 100 megabytes per second upload and
download, you know, download and upload. I don't understand the
need for that. And it has been said here that there is a
concern that because that is the standard set in this bill that
just about every single community in America, including
communities that already have, you know, broadband services,
are going to get the money as well, and these rural areas that
don't have anything aren't going to get it.
So I am hoping, and I want to tell my colleagues that I am
willing to work with you. It seems like a simple fix to me on
that is to prioritize areas that don't have broadband at all in
this bill. And so I am willing to work with my Democratic and
Republican colleagues on that fix.
My question, though, changing subjects, is for Mr. Moniz.
You had brought up the mining of critical minerals, and I just
want to read a couple of things that I had read first and then
ask you a question.
It says that 35 critical and rare earth minerals of
strategic importance to energy applications, high-tech
manufacturing and defense, have been identified by the previous
administration. The energy applications of these critical
minerals include magnets and wind turbines, batteries, and
electric and conventional vehicles, phosphorous, and energy-
efficient lighting and displays, and catalysts for mitigating
greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. is entirely reliant on
imports for 14 of the 35, while imports account for at least 50
percent of the supply for another 17.
And I think I read recently that, as far as lithium that is
used in these electric vehicle batteries, that most of it is
produced in Australia, if I am not mistaken, and then Chile,
and then China. But I am pretty sure--and I want you to
confirm--that it said that China processes most of it using
coal-fired plants.
So, first, I want you to confirm if China processes most of
the lithium. But then my question is, How do we get more mining
here of critical minerals, including lithium, and make sure
that we are able to do so? Because there is a lot of
environmental concerns, and so how do we balance that?
Dr. Moniz. So, Congresswoman Lesko, first of all, just let
me reaffirm that the need for these critical minerals is going
to just skyrocket, frankly, as we deploy new technologies.
Number two, you are absolutely right that China--it is not only
lithium. actually, China dominates the processing of many of
these critical minerals. So I think there is no doubt as a--you
know, as a sane energy security issue, we need to work to
diversify these sources of minerals and their processing.
Now, in the United States, we will be able to expand our
production in some of these areas. In lithium, for example,
there are initiatives in the Salton Sea, initiatives in North
Carolina, et cetera, but for other minerals, like cobalt, I
just don't think we have the natural resource.
So what we need to do is to really work with our allies--
Canada, Australia, for example--which have significant mining
experience and active mining, so that we can have a balance, at
least, against the Chinese processing dominance.
Now, in terms of reexamining mining, there is a lot of
discussion going on, for example, in Minnesota, in the iron
range, et cetera. But I think that this is, again, a case where
constituencies need to come together, balance climate,
environmental, improve environmental footprint. But I believe
we do need to expand domestic mining as an energy security
issue in a low-carbon world.
In fact, if I may just give one factoid that gives you an
idea of the scale: One of the very large offshore wind
turbines--and where I live in New England, offshore wind has
got to be a big part of the solution--just one of those
turbines requires a ton of a rare earth mineral. So this is
big.
Mrs. Lesko. Yes. Thank you. It is really big. And so I hope
all of our committee can figure out a way that we are not so
reliant on hostile countries, including China, to process and
also to mine. We have to come--we have to do it.
And so with that I yield back.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
Next, we go to Congresswoman Barragan.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you, Chair Pallone, for holding this
important hearing on the LIFT America Act, which invests more
than $312 billion in infrastructure to reduce pollution, combat
climate change, narrow the digital divide, create jobs, and
increase access to healthcare.
I am especially proud that provisions from my bill, the
Climate Smart Ports Act, have been included in LIFT to help
ports reduce pollution by investing in zero-emissions
technology. Nearly 40 percent of Americans live within 3 miles
of a port, including communities of color in my district near
the Port of Los Angeles. While ports create jobs and help our
economy run, they also are major sources of air pollution that
often impact the public health of communities of color.
Modernizing our ports is good for our climate, environmental
justice, and our public health.
Secretary Moniz, America's trade volume is expected to see
an increase of 300 percent by 2030. Do you agree that
electrifying our ports is an important climate solution, given
how connected they are to the goods movement system nationally
and globally?
Dr. Moniz. Absolutely. In fact, I might say that in the
Quadrennial Energy Review back in 2015 we made that
recommendation, and your acting on it is really a very, very
good idea. As you said, there are environmental justice issues.
There is a lot of energy trade as well that goes through our
ports. And I just mentioned offshore wind as an example. That
is going to require a whole port infrastructure to develop,
maintain, et cetera.
So electrifying that, and/or using hydrogen, clean hydrogen
or zero-carbon fuel, there are a few options. But going to
zero-carbon ports would be an enormous, enormous step forward.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you for that. I think it kinds of leads
into my second question that you covered a little bit.
The LIFT bill includes a critical downpayment of $3.8
billion over 5 years in decarbonizing ports. Given that there
are 360 commercial ports in the United States and we are
hearing the average cost of decarbonizing a port is at least
half a billion dollars, do you agree we need to be investing as
much as possible to meet that need?
Dr. Moniz. Yes. I think--but with the Federal funding, of
course, as much as possible, leveraging other funds to come in
with, perhaps, creative financing ways, because it will require
a lot of resources.
I would also argue that environmental justice could be used
as one of the priority factors in terms of how the investments
will be made.
Ms. Barragan. Well, thank you.
Mr. Secretary, for you next, the LIFT bill makes critical
investments in grid modernization to improve resiliency during
extreme weather events, which will become more frequent due to
climate change. When you were Energy Secretary, your department
provided grants, small grants to towns and cities to assist in
building microgrids to support critical facilities, such as
hospitals or fire departments during power outages.
Do you think LIFT should invest in clean energy microgrids
for communities across the country as part of a climate
resiliency strategy?
Dr. Moniz. Yes. And I might also add, by the way, of
course, microgrids play a huge role in our defense facilities,
our bases. But going back to the question, I think microgrids
should be looked at as one integral part of the overall smart
grid structure of the future because it provides the ability--
especially during risky periods for the grid stability, it
provides the ability to, in a certain sense, decouple and serve
a critical load in a reliable way during a stress on the grid.
Ms. Barragan. Well, thank you, Mr. Secretary.
I have a clean energy microgrids bill with Representative
Clarke that focuses these investments in the environmental
justice communities. I hope as we markup LIFT that we can
include further support for microgrids in this legislation.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
Next, we go to Congressman Pence.
Mr. Pence. Thank you, Chair Pallone and Ranking Member
Rodgers, for holding this meeting today.
One-third of the legislation we are considering today
authorizes clean energy programs, and so I would like to focus
my remarks today on these considerable provisions.
Following a long career in the petroleum industry, I came
to Congress to address the challenges facing our critical
infrastructure in both the short term and on a long-term basis.
In Indiana, the crossroads of America, we have always
recognized the importance of modernizing and investing in our
aging infrastructure. We rank number one in roads. This
contributes to the prosperity of not only Hoosiers but all
Americans. What the current administration fails to realize is
that the demand for affordable, reliable energy is only going
to increase. As my colleagues on this esteemed committee know,
sources of clean and renewable energy will only be as useful as
they are reliable.
I support an all-of-the-above approach to energy
production, but the intermittent nature of solar and wind will
leave a gap in baseload power that consumers need for reliable
and affordable energy.
To support the robust network of electric vehicles that the
LIFT America Act suggests, disruptions in available power will
have even more disastrous implications in our economy and
national security. Fossil fuels, like natural gas and coal, are
needed to protect the integrity of our grid and affordability
of electricity prices on a baseload basis.
Unfortunately, this legislation misses the mark on any
meaningful expansion of the pipeline infrastructure that is
needed for cleaner-burning, reliable fuel. I hope that the
majority will consider additional provisions that support the
robust pipeline distribution that will be necessary to sustain
energy needs for the electric vehicle network that this
legislation envisions. Pipeline distributions will continue
playing an important role in other clean energy technologies.
I am proud that Cummins Engine Company, headquartered just
miles from my home in Columbus, Indiana, is developing world-
class innovation to advance cleaner technology using hydrogen
and fuel cell solutions. However, like any other fuel, hydrogen
will need to be transported from point A to point B, and
pipelines will have to be part of the equation if we are to
enable the hydrogen fueling infrastructure provisions in this
bill.
My bipartisan Clean Energy Hydrogen Innovation Act is a
good first step to advance U.S. leadership in hydrogen
innovation through the Department of Energy's loan guarantee
program.
Mr. Moniz, in your testimony you touched on the need for
low-carbon fuels to complement clean electricity. I agree with
your sentiment that hydrogen has the potential to play a
critical role in an all-of-the-above energy strategy in a wide
array of applications.
My question is this: How quickly do you think we could
create a distribution network to bring this innovative carbon-
neutral or in some cases carbon-negative solution to market,
and what are the elements of this network? And, finally, does
it include pipelines?
Dr. Moniz. Thank you, Mr. Pence, for the question.
In fact, in my testimony there was a rather complicated
figure in which my answer really is centered. Namely, I would
see the opportunity to really focus on hydrogen market
development in this decade. We need to move out, I think, quite
quickly on this.
For example, we showed in that figure to which I am
referring to how the United States--and I think Indiana would
be one of those cases, where the convergence of industry and
power and the opportunity for CO2 sequestration,
they all converge.
And so what we would argue for is that Congress could
really incentivize two, three, four of these hydrogen
CO2 hubs to be really focused on in the near term.
And that could be a mixture, given the CO2
opportunities, a mixture of so-called blue hydrogen and
potentially green hydrogen as well. But hydrogen, as you have
said, has this capacity to, essentially in the longer term,
replace the role of natural gas in serving multiple end uses,
and I think in a low-carbon way. So that is really important.
And I think we could move out in 5 years if there was a focus
on these dispersed number of demonstration hubs.
Mr. Pence. Well, thank you. I sure hope we consider this
very quickly. I know there are some, I will call them
manufacturers, that believe this technology is here today.
And, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
Next, we go to Lisa Blunt Rochester.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling
this crucial hearing on the LIFT America Act, and thank you to
the witnesses for your testimony today.
As we know, the COVID-19 pandemic has exasperated an
already crumbling infrastructure. For too long, we have
neglected to invest in our country's infrastructure needs, and
many of our Nation's roads, bridges, dams, and drinking water
systems are in desperate need of upgrades and repairs. As we
consider legislation to modernize our Nation's infrastructure,
it is also critical that we remember that investment must
include broadband.
The Enhanced Emergency Broadband Act, which I proudly
support, expands access to internet for low-income individuals
and families that were disproportionately impacted by the
COVID-19 pandemic. And while I was pleased to see this bill's
inclusion in the package, we need to look for the permanent
solution for broadband affordability, especially as we continue
to move toward an increasingly digital world.
The LIFT America Act also makes a long overdue investment
to reduce emissions at our Nation's ports as was shared by my
colleague, Ms. Barragan. This language is based in part on the
Climate Action Planning for Ports Act, which I introduced
earlier this year. Ports and the trucks, ships, trains, cargo-
handling equipment that serve them are major sources of
greenhouse gas emissions and continue to threaten the health
and well-being of near port communities, many of which are low-
wealth communities and communities of color. By [inaudible]
ports, we will not only help to address the ongoing climate
crisis and historic environmental injustices in this country,
but we will also create good-paying jobs, and we need to work
together to do this.
Secretary Moniz, my questions are for you. What are the
benefits of investing in emissions reductions at ports, and how
will decarbonizing ports improve public health while expanding
economic opportunity?
Dr. Moniz. Well, thank you, Congresswoman Rochester.
Well, first of all, of course, decreasing emissions
anywhere is very important for our collective well-being as we
see how the climate is changing and the extremes of weather are
becoming more and more frequent and, frankly, more and more
expensive for us to deal with. So that is number one.
Number two, now ports are pretty intense sources of
emissions, so they represent a great opportunity to reduce
emissions, and, at the same time, as you say, in many, many,
many cases address social equity issues, given the frontline
communities that are often near, practically colocated with
these ports.
Third, there is going to be a lot of action around ports
increasing. So, again, they present a major opportunity, as I
said earlier, both for broader trade issues but also in
Delaware--I am in Massachusetts, the Atlantic coast--we already
have 20 gigawatts of offshore wind projects in development.
There is another dozen being spoken of. It is going to
increase, and this is going to require developing major port
facilities, major onshore infrastructure, major job
implications, and those jobs hopefully could go as well to some
of those nearby communities that could use good jobs.
So it is a winner all around.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Sure. That is a great segue into my
next question.
I got a chance to visit the Port of Wilmington in Delaware
last week to talk with them about the fact that local labor
unions have worked with them in our port to make sure that it
is cleaner, it is electrified. And would you agree that an
investment in clean energy ports will help disperse job
creation with the proper labor protections, which are in this
legislation, that we can mitigate any potential negative
impacts on port workers?
Dr. Moniz. Absolutely, and in fact I would give you an
anecdote. Going back to the offshore wind case, at my
organization, EFI, we have a partnership with the AFL-CIO. We
have 10 areas that we want to study that would be part of
addressing low carbon with a focus on good jobs. In the
discussions with labor, number two on the list of 10 is
offshore wind and developing those supply chains, including of
course the onshore supply chains. So spot on, yes.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you so much, Secretary Moniz,
and I am excited to see what we are doing at our port and want
to make sure that all ports across this country have the tools
and the resources and the funding to decarbonize.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I yield back.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
Next is Congressman Crenshaw.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for
your patience in suffering through all of our questions. It is
greatly appreciated.
Look, our main problem with this is, as usual, we are
spending lots of money. We are attaching morality to a dollar
sign. We are attaching the length to which we care about
something to dollar signs. This is a fallacy, especially with
infrastructure. We cannot keep throwing money at things without
a better plan to incentivize at least some private investment,
and this bill does the opposite in many, many cases across the
spectrum.
When you have an infrastructure plan, you should definitely
start by making it easier to build said infrastructure instead
of putting additional mandates and regulations that make it
harder. Let me give you an example. Last week we debated the
Clean Future Act. One of the big proponents of that Act is to
ban future plastic manufacturing. OK. Well, I thought we were
trying to build fiberoptic cables.
So this question is for Mr. O'Rielly. If we are not going
to be producing more plastics, if we are going to make that
impossible, how does that affect our ability to lay down
thousands of miles worth of fiberoptic cable?
Mr. O'Rielly. It is a component of--I mean, glass and
plastic and a lot of things go into the universe. It is going
to make it more difficult, more expensive, and it may even
drive to buy purchases in other countries.
Mr. Crenshaw. Another question. I have spoken to a lot of
industry experts on this. Is fiberoptic cable into rural areas
the only way to get broadband to rural areas?
Mr. O'Rielly. Well, it depends on what speed you are
talking about. Many rural America consumers today get it
through a variety of technologies, and they enjoy it. Most
consumers don't care where the technology is, as long as it
meets their family's needs. So we have satellite, we have
wireless, we have got definitely fiber, you have got coax. So
there are a number of different technologies that are operating
today that people are able to connect to broadband. If you
raise the rates and the speeds as identified in the bill, well,
then you basically are saying it is only fiber.
Mr. Crenshaw. Yes. And I guess, you know, let's talk about
those rates. You have mentioned 25/3 over and over again. I
just Googled what it takes to watch Netflix, what Netflix
recommends. If you have multiple people trying to watch HD,
then they want a 5 megabytes-per-second speed, so that is
obviously significantly less than 100/100.
OK. I live in Houston. I don't think we suffer from low
internet speeds. But generally speaking, what does an urban
area like mine have as far as speeds go? Would we be under--
what I am getting at is, would we be considered unserved if we
went to this 100/100 speed rating?
Mr. O'Rielly. Well, there is--the estimate I have seen is
that 57 percent of America will be deemed unserved under the
definition. So, I don't know if that would cover a major
metropolitan city top 10 market like Houston. I would suspect
probably not. But a number of markets that we would determine
otherwise--I mentioned Buffalo would fall in that case, where I
come from. So I mentioned a lot of markets that people wouldn't
estimate as rural or unserved would now be deemed that way.
Mr. Wheeler. Congressman, 80 percent of Americans have 1
gigabit today, so I am sure--and that is basically what cable
companies provide. They are, by the way, upgrading to 10
gigabits.
Mr. Crenshaw. OK. I mean, I certainly don't have 1 gigabit.
I can check that. The point is this. There is a lot of--and
there seems to be conflicting data on this, but the point is
this, and I think the point Mr. O'Rielly was making earlier,
and the reason we believe, and the reason industry has told us:
This is what will happen with the flow of dollars if you make
it 100/100 is when it is unnecessary for what we are actually
trying to accomplish just in our daily lives, OK.
But, second, it causes a lot of urban areas to be
considered unserved when, in fact, they are perfectly well-
served. And, of course, money is going to flow there. It just
makes sense from an investment perspective. That is our issue
with this.
I want to move on to Secretary Moniz and move the
conversation--I am already out of time--Mr. Moniz, this plan
does not have anything for the one baseload energy that is
carbon free: nuclear energy. You have written in the past about
supporting the need for nuclear and next-generation nuclear.
You haven't changed your mind, have you? We would still need to
do that, I would assume. Because the thing about investing in
purely renewables is they are inherently unreliable.
Dr. Moniz. Well, I wouldn't characterize the renewables as
unreliable, but I do support and continue to support modern
nuclear--both fission and fusion, by the way, where the private
sector in both cases has really stepped up to the plate with
enormous infusions, more innovation than we have ever seen in
nuclear--and I think this is very promising for impacting our
grid needs in the next couple of decades.
Mr. Crenshaw. Well, thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
We now go to Darren Soto.
Mr. Soto. Thank you, Chairman.
President Biden ran on the promise to build back better,
and he won. He won because he promised to defeat the
coronavirus and bring us back to prosperity. He also won
because he promised, to, quote, create millions of good union
jobs, rebuilding America's crumbling infrastructure, from roads
to bridges, to green spaces and water systems, to electrical
grids and universal broadband as part of that Build Back Better
plan.
Eighty percent of Americans support rebuilding our Nation's
infrastructure. Even President Trump said he wanted a $1
trillion infrastructure package. Yet infrastructure became a
long running joke for 4 years. How sad for the American people.
I am hearing criticism today from my colleagues across the
aisle, but you had your chance. You had your chance for 4 years
and wasted it. We are not wasting any more time. Americans
across the country are serious about infrastructure, and we are
serious about infrastructure, and that is why we are moving
forward with the LIFT Act, with or without you. The LIFT Act
will finally lift America's infrastructure into the 2lst
century.
First, it will modernize our electric grid and boost
renewable potential, make our grid more resilient against
natural disasters, like hurricanes that Florida experienced,
and cyber attacks, or boosting energy efficiency. And we are
going to create an electric-vehicle-charging network across
this Nation, as was mentioned many times, including by
Secretary Moniz. The private sector is already there and past
that. We just need to step up.
Second, the LIFT Act will rebuild crumbling drinking water
infrastructure. From Flint, Michigan, to St. Cloud, Florida, in
my district, to cities and towns across the Nation, we need to
step up to help them. It recently made national news when an
attacker hacked into Florida's water system in an attempt to
poison the entire community. We need to support--and I am
pleased that we are extending this EPA program in this bill.
Also, PFAS chemicals are a pressing threat to our community,
and the LIFT Act would invest significant sums to help get this
out of our water. We even had a cancer cluster in central
Florida among our firefighters because of PFAS. So we need to
partner with local governments.
Third, the LIFT Act would provide internet access to
Americans across the Nation, from precision farming in orange
groves in rural Polk and Osceola Counties in my district, to
modernizing classrooms in more urban district areas of Orlando
and Kissimmee, to making sure we have high-speed internet to
learn, to conduct business, to have telehealth, among countless
activities that modern Americans face every day. We need to
make sure all Americans have access to internet.
And, finally, the LIFT Act will upgrade our healthcare
infrastructure. We still have the COVID-19 pandemic, laid bare
our waning healthcare infrastructure. The bill improves our
workforce capacity, expands laboratory systems and health
information systems so CDC and our hospital network can be
better prepared for future pandemics.
Secretary Moniz, in your testimony you spoke about the grid
upgrades that are necessary to accommodate distributed and
clean energy sources. Speaking specifically on solar, which is
really important for Florida, what are some grid considerations
as more solar is added to the mix? And what upgrades in
investments are necessary to accommodate both utility scale
solar as well as distributed solar?
Dr. Moniz. Well, thank you, Congressman Soto.
Well, first of all, one of the issues with solar, of
course, we all know, is that the sun, the sun peaks in the
afternoon, and as solar becomes a very, very large part of the
grid--and I am very bullish on solar, I have to say--clearly
the storage requirements that go along with it will have to be
addressed. And as solar is going up--and California has seen
this--then battery storage is going to be very important for
addressing the intraday storage needs. But we still have some
innovation to do for when solar gets really, really big, in
terms of also what is called long-duration storage. Days,
weeks, and frankly even seasonal may become important if solar
is dominant in a system. But this is all manageable. I think
the innovation programs need to be pushed hard in that
direction.
Secondly, solar has the unique advantage of being able to
be deployed at utility scale, at community scale, and at an
individual scale with individual housing.
So it is really an extraordinarily flexible approach. But,
again, we need to integrate it with storage in these cases, and
battery prices falling down really help with that intraday
storage. Now, let's get some of those longer-duration storage.
We mentioned earlier pumped hydro is a great solution, but
it doesn't work too well in Florida, for example. But there are
other approaches, like flow batteries, et cetera, which could
be used.
Mr. Soto. Thank you.
My time has expired.
Mr. Pallone. OK. Next, we go to Congressman Joyce.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Chairman Pallone, and Ranking Member
Rodgers, and thank you for the witnesses for being with us here
today.
I am extremely concerned about how the provisions in this
bill would affect rural communities like the one that I
represent in south central and southwestern Pennsylvania. Many
in my district have no access to reliable broadband whatsoever,
and this has impact. It has impact on commerce, on healthcare,
and particularly now in education.
One of my top priorities in Congress has consistently been
to expand services to these areas. Sadly, the direction that
this committee is going with the LIFT Act America will only
further grow the digital divide and widen the gap between rural
and urban America, and not close it.
Commissioner O'Rielly, the LIFT Act would mandate
government collection of pricing data, require providers to
open their broadband networks to competitors after they build
the infrastructure and encourage local governments to build
their own networks in direct competition with companies.
Do you think that this can be a model for success?
Mr. O'Rielly. Well, I think as I have indicated in my
testimony, I think it discourages private investment and favors
other. By adding new burdens and favoring, you know,
competitors from local governments, I think you are a recipe
for disaster, and the areas that aren't served today are likely
to remain that way. And you make it more difficult for the
private sector to serve and bring benefits.
I think the speed rate of 100 up--my former colleague
indicated that cable offers 1 gig, but they don't offer 1 gig
on upload. And then too, I would say to that point, is that
very few people take that service. So to argue that everybody
needs it at that rate and we should pay for it just means that
the areas that we should be targeting and that you talked about
in your district and the consumers, constituents that need
service are not going to get it. We are on the edge. We are at
the last 5 percent of America, give or take, to get to the 25/3
threshold.
And I realize it is not ideal in terms of what the future
may bring in terms of speeds, but it is getting everybody to a
basic level, and we have never gotten there.
I was at 4/1, trying to get everyone to 4/1 and we moved
the goalpost, then 10/1 and we moved the goalpost, and now it
is 25/3 and we are trying to go to a different place. It means
those consumers that you represent that don't have service are
going to be further away from getting there.
Now, the idea that you can have one option and it will
solve all of the issues: We are on the edge of getting service
to those consumers, and the attention and energy-efficient
activity will all flow to the new $80 billion program and away
from these programs which will be dismantled.
Mr. Joyce. Mr. O'Rielly, I have seen funding proposals that
are supposed to be tech neutral, but they require providers to
offer, as we discussed, 100/100 service. That would seem to
limit building to fiber builds, and even though, as you have
discussed, other technologies might make more sense in some
areas, based on costs, where I live, based on terrain, or
remoteness. Do you agree that the programs need truly to be
tech neutral to ensure that many parts of the country as
possible are able to receive this incredibly necessary
broadband?
Mr. O'Rielly. We should use all technologies. The end
consumer doesn't mind where the technology is. They want it to
work to meet their family's needs. And so to basically say
everyone has to have fiber, that is a wrong direction, in my
opinion. We certainly want speeds to be as high as we can, but
we still have the population, that you represent a portion,
that doesn't have service today, and we should be really
focused on them like a laser.
Mr. Joyce. I think that analogy is spot on. We need to have
the development and be able to use all forms of technology to
provide this service. As I mentioned in my opening comments, we
have areas where commerce and healthcare and education are not
being served, so being able to utilize all of these is so
important.
Again, I thank all of you for being present here today. And
I yield the remainder of my time.
Mr. Pallone. OK. So next, we have Congresswoman Rice.
Miss Rice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for being
here today.
In my State of New York, our hospitals and health systems
are among the finest in the world, where our buildings are
collectively the oldest in the country. Funding cuts to State
and local health departments have undermined their ability to
protect the health of the residents in their communities, and
decades of underinvestment in public health left us unprepared
for this pandemic.
We simply cannot afford to ignore the needs of the public
health sector until the next crisis arises. Adequate and
sustained Federal investment in public health infrastructure is
needed to ensure that we can protect and improve the health of
all Americans. It shouldn't fall upon States alone to make this
investment.
So, I am very happy that included in the LIFT America Act
is my bill to provide grant funding to State and local health
departments for core public health infrastructure needs. Across
the country in areas that were hard hit by the virus, like in
my district on Long Island, local health departments were on
the front lines and played a critical role in providing care to
their residents.
I do believe it is in our country's best interests to
invest in modernizing our public health systems to ensure that
we can combat emerging health threats in the future.
Dr. Frieden, if you could, just talk about how the core
public health infrastructure authorization in this bill will
help State and local health departments.
Dr. Frieden. What we have seen over the past two decades is
a loss of 50,000 jobs in State and local health departments. We
have seen data systems that are not up to today's standards and
that couldn't manage for the COVID pandemic. We have seen
monitoring systems that are out of date, and we have seen a
population that lacks resilience. And because of that,
mortality was higher, more people died, and economic
destruction was higher. There was more than there needed to be.
So it is crucially important that we strengthen State and
local health departments. We can do that by not only funding
more, but also providing more cohesive staffing with thousands
of CDC staff who are embedded for years and learn what the
front lines really mean in public health. That is possible
through this bill and a health defense operations approach that
allows for sustained funding year after year, because the risks
are not going to go away and we just cannot keep having this
cycle of panic, neglect, panic. We have to get out of this
cycle so that we can avoid the avoidable death and economic
disruption of infectious disease threats.
Miss. Rice. I couldn't agree with you more. Doctor, can you
please tell us what accountability mechanisms are needed so
that we can ensure that every penny of Federal resource, that
that money is distributed effectively and equitably to local
health departments?
Dr. Frieden. So, first off, the CDC works on a system of
what are called cooperative agreements that have specific
outcome indicators with the recommendation of the health
defense operations approach. What we would suggest is specific
programs like the CDC influenza program, vector borne diseases,
which could be a huge risk for emerging infections, antibiotic
risk, food safety, epidemiology and laboratory capacity, which
we discussed earlier in this hearing, surveillance, workforce,
global health security, public health emergency programs, the
Strategic National Stockpile, the Hospital Preparedness
Program, and possibly others from Food and Drug Administration
and elsewhere.
These are specific lines that have specific
accountabilities. And more broadly, we have programs that
resolve that every country in the world commit to what we are
calling 7-1-7, a commitment that every outbreak is identified
within 7 days of its suspected emergence; second, that it is
reported, investigation started, and control started within 1
day; and third, that within 7 days, a comprehensive, effective
response is established. That kind of approach, that is
accountability. We need that in this country and around the
world to protect Americans.
Miss. Rice. Thank you, Doctor.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce a letter for the
record from a group of bipartisan Senators that supports 100
symmetrical broadband speeds as the baseline for Federal
funding for broadband networks.
Mr. Pallone. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Miss. Rice. Thank you. I would like to offer to yield my
final 30 seconds to Mr. Wheeler to, if you could, just respond
to some of what my Republican colleagues have talked about
today that you can address from your perspective.
Mr. Wheeler. Well, thank you for the opportunity,
Congresswoman.
The current program has not worked. It has not delivered us
rural urban equivalence. And we want to keep doing it that way?
We ought to be saying, ``Let's spend the people's money the
same way that private money is being spent.'' This whole
concept of tech neutrality means tech inadequacy. And it means
that there are going to be future hearings asking, Why didn't
we do it right the first time?
Mr. Pallone. Mr. Wheeler, you have got to wrap it up,
though, because the time has expired.
Mr. Wheeler. I just did. I am done.
Mr. Pallone. All right.
Miss. Rice. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pallone. Thanks.
All right. Next we go to Kelly Armstrong.
Mr. Armstrong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Moniz, I actually--I appreciate over the last
several years some of your comments and statements that have
been supporting natural gas as a bridge fuel, and I promise I
am not going to put words in your mouth other than direct
quotes, but in 2013 before the Senate Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, you stated in broad terms we find that given
the large amounts of natural gas available in the U.S. at
moderate cost, natural gas can, indeed, play an important role
over the next couple of decades together with demand management
and economically advancing a clean energy system.
In 2019 before the House Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Subcommittee, you stated natural gas in
particular will continue to play for some time an important
role in providing dispatchable electric power generation in
high-temperature industrial processes, applications that are
not readily amenable to nonfossil fuel options.
But I think--and I appreciate that, and I am going to give
you a chance to answer a couple of questions. We have seen too
often--and I can use my colleagues in the House--that we have
waged a consistent war, at least since my time in 2018, against
natural gas despite its benefits in reducing overall carbon
emissions in the power sector.
According to the Department of Energy, between 2005 and
2019 total U.S. electricity generation increased by almost 2
percent while U.S.-related CO2 emissions fell by 33
percent. EIA calculated that, during the same time,
CO2 emission reductions from shifts in electricity
generation totaled 5,475 million metric tons. Most of this
reduction resulted from the increased use of natural gas.
But at the same time, we see the political side of this
where we have had a tax on the natural gas production. Last
Congress, many if not all of the Democratic Members on this
committee voted to ban liquefied natural gas by rail. We have
seen all of the litigation and not just in new pipelines but in
improving existing pipelines.
So when we talk about methane and reducing methane
emissions, one of those factors has to be to replace old pipe
that has been in the ground for a long time with new, better
pipe and better technologies.
Unfortunately, we see that happen at a way where there is
no streamlining to the process, right. We see it with the
Enbridge Line in western Minnesota. We have seen it with other
lines where you cannot get the new pipeline in the ground
without dealing with new permiting. Obviously capacity comes
into play, and different litigation moving on.
So how do we--this will be the short question. How do we
bridge those two things? That was a long intro to a short
question. We know that this is going to be part of the
foreseeable future. It has to be because the technology and the
buildout of the infrastructure doesn't exist yet.
So how do we do that while streamlining the process and
understanding the realities of energy production and what we
need to fuel our economy?
Dr. Moniz. I may have forgotten the beginning of the
question by the end of the question, but thank you.
Certainly the quotes--by the way, I certainly own up to the
quotes that you said. I do believe that natural gas will
continue, will have to continue to be part of the system,
particularly as we see the continued acceleration by the
private sector of phasing out coal plants to be replaced by a
combination of gas and renewables and battery storage. That
will continue.
I do think we need to accelerate the introduction of carbon
capture and sequestration on both natural gas combined cycle
plants and on industrial facilities, but in order to----
Mr. Armstrong. Yes. And just real quick, but that is going
to require more pipe as well, right?
Dr. Moniz. Yes. And I was going to say with regard to
infrastructure, number one, industry has to get in there with
both feet on suppressing the methane emissions. That is very,
very important, both technically and, frankly, politically to
do that.
Secondly, using existing rights-of-way I think for a lot of
infrastructure, including pipes, is absolutely essential to
minimize any kind of eminent domain and public opposition.
Mr. Armstrong. And eminent domain law is different in every
State, right? Like, North Dakota doesn't have it unless you are
a common carrier.
Dr. Moniz. It is different in different States. There are--
without getting into it, the 2007 Energy Security Act did
provide DOE with some eminent domain authorities when it
overlaps with some of the power marketing administrations.
But the other thing on infrastructure--and as much
reutilization of infrastructure as we can get is important
also, in what is a likely natural gas to hydrogen transition
when you look down the road 15, 20 years.
Mr. Armstrong. Well, I appreciate that. If you can figure
out how we can deal with the reutilization without numerous
lawsuits and permiting hurdles, I am all in.
And with that, I yield back.
Dr. Moniz. Can I just add one thing? For example, we could
already now start to move some component of hydrogen and
renewable natural gas in natural gas pipelines. We could do 5
percent, maybe 10 percent. So we could start introducing this
right now with existing infrastructure.
Mr. Pallone. All right. Thank you.
Now we go to Angie Craig.
Mrs. Craig. Well, thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, for
holding this important hearing. There is really no bigger topic
we can take on next than revitalizing our Nation's
infrastructure and economy. Thank you to our panelists for
being here and sharing your expertise as well with us today.
Closing the digital divide between our urban and rural
communities is one of my top priorities. As a Member of
Congress, I have the great honor of representing a district
that is part urban, part suburban, ex-urban, and rural. High-
speed internet access is a lifeline to education, to
healthcare, and to economic opportunity.
LIFT America increases broadband infrastructure development
from 40 billion in full-year 2020 to nearly 80 billion for 2022
to 2026. For my constituents in rural communities, broadband
access can mean access to potentially life-saving telehealth
services, particularly within the realm of mental health
services.
So my first question is to Mr. Wheeler this afternoon. You
launched the Connect the Health Task Force during your time at
the FCC which studied the link between broadband and health. In
your testimony, you mentioned the need for internet access to
sign up for a COVID-19 vaccine, but in your view, what are some
of the other ways that broadband impacts healthcare delivery
and access? And what do you personally hope we maintain, having
come through this public health crisis, that we have learned as
we move to the future of telehealth?
Mr. Wheeler. Well, thank you, Congresswoman Craig. I mean,
you are right. And credit needs to be given where it is due. It
was Commissioner Mignon Clyburn who took on the personal
responsibility on that telehealth task force. And I was
privileged to travel around the country with her and see how
technology is being put to work. There is a very simple issue
here.
The doctors are here. The people are here, OK. We have to
be able to connect them. We can't connect them with yesterday's
slow speed technology, the kind of technology that we have been
seeing hiccups with today. You can't have that happen in the
middle of an exam. We need to have quality connectivity between
the doctors and the patients so that, wherever you are, you get
quality telehealth services, and that is based on quality
broadband connectivity.
Mrs. Craig. Thank you so much, Mr. Wheeler.
Dr. Frieden, I want to turn to you. As you noted today,
COVID-19 has also laid bare decades of underinvestment in our
country's public health infrastructure. In my home State of
Minnesota, community health centers serve around 200,000 people
annually and employ over 1,700 full-time staff.
Centers like Open Door, which operates a dental clinic in
Jordan, Minnesota, provide an invaluable service to our
patients and our community. The $10 billion in capital project
funding authorized by LIFT America would provide clinics like
Open Door with the ability to expand their facility and their
services to reach more patients in my district.
Dr. Frieden, can you expand on the importance of capital
project funding at the community level and why such funding
must be predictable moving forward?
Dr. Frieden. This is really important, and it goes into the
bigger issue of strengthening primary care. We spend, last I
saw, more than $3.5 trillion a year on healthcare, and we get
worse health outcomes than any other high-income country. We
live 4 years less with more disabilities, and we pay more. We
are a negative outlier.
And earlier I mentioned some data I sent around, that we
will send around after, that demonstrates that part of the fix
has to be strengthening primary care systems, and community
health centers are a critically important part of that effort.
Now, community health centers don't have the kind of access
to capital that hospitals have. Community health centers serve
communities--urban, rural, generally underserved. It is
crucially important that they have additional funding so that
they can serve more patients.
Mrs. Craig. Well, thank you so much, Dr. Frieden. And as a
new member of the committee, I am going to yield a whole 15
seconds back to my chairman before----
Dr. Frieden. If I can just take 2 seconds of that to say it
has to be sustained because it can't be just one time. It needs
to be continuing support. Sorry.
Mrs. Craig. That is OK, Dr. Frieden. Thank you, and I yield
back.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
Next is John Curtis.
Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our
witnesses. It is amazing that you will sit and stay with us
this long.
I would like to spend my time talking about the digital
divide issue, broadband. I too have a district that is urban
and rural, but I think I bring a pretty unique perspective to
this discussion. And that is several years ago, almost a decade
ago, I was a mayor of a city, and we had tried as a municipal
government to bring broadband into our city. As a matter of
fact, my predecessor spent more per resident than this bill
does, if we put it on a per resident basis, and we failed. I
took over a failing network.
By bringing the private sector in, we were actually able to
offer gig speed--now, remember, this is nearly a decade ago,
gig speed was a big deal back then--for about 70 bucks per
resident. But more important, every single resident in my city
had free internet and free connection to that internet.
Well, how did we do it, and what did we learn? Well, we
learned that government is ill equipped to deal with the fast-
changing nature of technology and especially broadband. I have
heard today pay it once, get it right for the first time. My
experience says you can't do that with this. It is changing so
fast and needs so much continual investment that government
can't come in and write a check and be done with it.
From my experience, and I think if we are all honest with
ourselves, we know by the time the money is spent in this bill,
if it is passed, the technology that we are spending it on will
be out of date. It is just the reality. Seven years ago, we
made national news by having a gig speed as a city. Today, we
look back, and we kind of laugh at that gig speed.
Mr. O'Rielly, what is your experience, and who is best
equipped to deal with the fast-changing nature of broadband:
government or private sector? And let me acknowledge I think
both have a role, but are we overlooking the valuable role of
the private sector here today?
Mr. O'Rielly. Yes, I would agree with you. I think it is
both a private-sector role and a government role. And I spent
time in the Government at the FCC working on these issues and
working to make sure that the private sector can deploy the
network as far as it possibly can and, in those areas where the
market wasn't succeeding, how do we differently design those
subsidy programs to entice them to serve the other portion of
the population that is not being addressed today.
And each market is a little different, you know. We have
done this through reverse auctions, which I helped lead at the
Commission. And so I think, you know, we have learned an awful
lot through the process, and we are fine-tuning it. And we are
finally down to the last 4, 5, 6 percent of the population that
is really hard to serve, that is not necessarily always in the
urban centers that you represent.
Mr. Curtis. Yes. So my district----
Mr. Wheeler. Can I talk about----
Mr. Curtis. Mr. Wheeler, I have got a very limited amount
of time. Mr. Chairman, please help me out here. This is my
time, and I have got just a precious little bit of it.
Mr. Pallone. The Member should only address your response
to the people who have been addressed to. Thanks.
Mr. Curtis. So my district would represent what you are
talking about. We have done an amazing job of getting a good
gig speed into much of my rural district. It is that last
little bit of it that we are just not done with.
Now, I am attending this hearing today in a different
location. I have got at times as much as--as little as 4 megs
up--excuse me--4 megs down and 10 up, and I had no problem with
this hearing. So I don't want to waste my time on this, but I
want to emphasize what my colleagues have said, that we don't
need 100/100 to get what we need to do here.
Now, my last question, Mr. O'Rielly, is can we get fiber
broadband to every American household without permiting reform?
In my district, it takes 9 years to permit across Federal land.
Are we missing the point here? I know it is not the only part
of our problem, but are we missing the point, and what do we
need to be doing with regulation?
Mr. O'Rielly. I fully agree that a number of legislative
efforts that the committee members have introduced should be
part of any package. The number of burdens that have been
placed on industry on the permiting side, on the cost side, on
terms of the environmental regulations, and then Federal lands
slows down projects considerably and prevents the deployment
that you just spoke of. And so to get those things to happen--
--
Mr. Curtis. I have got just a few seconds left. Let me make
this point. As a mayor, I also learned that when we brought in
and did an infrastructure project, if we spent $1 of Federal
money, it increased the cost of our project by 30 percent
because of the excessive regulations.
If we want to give a 30 percent discount, right, to this
project right off the top, let's figure out how to get
Government to be more cooperative with State and local
governments in their efforts.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield my time.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
Next is Lizzie Fletcher, Congresswoman Fletcher.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you so much, Chairman Pallone, for
holding this hearing today, and thank you to all of our
witnesses for your testimony. Your insights about the
challenges and opportunities before us in this moment and then
in this infrastructure legislation have been really, really
useful. And there are so many issues to cover, but I would like
to use the few minutes I have to talk about some of the issues
that are priorities for my constituents here in Houston.
Perhaps it is not a surprise, then, that I will direct my
questions primarily to you, Dr. Moniz. In your written
testimony and during the hearing today, you have talked about
the importance that carbon capture utilization and storage will
play in meeting a midcentury net-zero goal. And this is an area
of great interest here in Houston. There is large-scale support
for CCUS. I have met with a number of my constituents and folks
who are actively working in this area right now. We worked hard
to address some of the 45Q tax credit guidance in the last
Congress.
And here in Houston we are really well situated to lead the
way in the technology with our industrial presence, the
existing pipeline infrastructure, and our geology. But despite
all this interest in all of this work, we just haven't seen the
kind of deployment that we need to meet our carbon reduction
goals.
So in your testimony you say that in order to create a
large-scale CO2 management infrastructure, there
need to be new regulatory frameworks with additional financial
incentives. So I would like to hear your thoughts about sort of
whether and how Congress should assist in this process, what
the framework would look like, and what funding mechanisms you
think would be most effective for these critical projects?
Dr. Moniz. Thank you, Congresswoman Fletcher. First of all,
of course, as you know very well, your region would be an
excellent place for one of those combined hydrogen
CO2 hubs that I mentioned. With industry, with
CO2, you already have hydrogen, not very far away,
serving refineries and the like.
In terms of the need, the incentives, well, one of the
things is I would say the DOE CarbonSAFE program to
characterize major CO2 sequestration hubs could be
supported more strongly and expanded in scope. That would be
one thing.
Secondly, I think, I appreciate, especially in the work of
the Energy Act of December in terms of extending the 45Q tax
credits. Frankly, I think more could be done there because, in
particular, to push the CCS on NGCC plants, I think we need a
little bit more oomph. But the other thing is I think that we
need to really get together in a strong push to UCCS right now
across much more of the industrial sector. That is where you
have much more low-hanging fruit, some of it in Texas, some of
it elsewhere. For example, in California we found that all four
ethanol plants right now would be in the money if they put CCS
on those plants.
Third is, again, this issue of permiting. There are--in my
view, we are going to have to move ultimately when we start
talking about very large-scale CCS to addressing the long-term
liability issues. I believe we are going to need third-party
players. I mentioned a possible utility model for
CO2 disposal. Well, when you are doing that, you
have to have some insurance approach to the long-term liability
issues to turn it over to a third party.
So those are a few examples. There is a lot could be done,
and of course, also in December, with the authorization of six
major CCS projects, it is really time. It is really a good time
to really implement those because we need to show how those
work in both the power and in the industrial sector, in my
view, by 2030 so that they are ready to really scale in the
2030s.
Mrs. Fletcher. Terrific. Thank you. And one followup
question in the few seconds I have left. You mentioned earlier
in your testimony, I think in response to a question from Mr.
Sarbanes, about the need for direct removal or direct air
capture. And that seems like a critical part of the path
forward. Can you talk a little bit just about how you envision
that direct removal and what we can do in Congress to
facilitate that as well?
Dr. Moniz. Yes. I think this is an enormously important
area. Congress did add almost $100 million to CDR last year,
but we estimate a $10 billion RD&D program over 10 years as
needed. I want to emphasize it is not only direct air capture,
it is many other approaches as well: terrestrial,
mineralization, upper layers of the ocean getting more
alkalinity in the ocean. It is a broad program and very, very
high priority, in my view.
Mrs. Fletcher. OK. Well, thank you so much, Dr. Moniz. I
have gone over my time.
So, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
So now we go to Buddy Carter.
Mr. Carter. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all of
you for being here. This is certainly an important hearing, and
we appreciate all your expertise.
Mr. O'Rielly, I want to start with you. In preparing for
this hearing, I reviewed this legislation and this bill, and I
reviewed it with my staff as well. I am having a little bit of
trouble, and I wanted to know if you could help me understand
exactly what digital equity means. It seems like it is very
broad to me. It seems like it includes not only speeds but
devices, applications, contents, digital literacy, and a whole
lot more. And I just want to know if you can articulate for me
exactly what digital equity is?
Mr. O'Rielly. Well, I think the term is intended to be very
broad to meet a population that may not be a subscriber today
or may not be a user and to bring them online and to deal with
all of their potential needs, and you are right. As I read it,
it deals with devices and literacy and a bunch of different
components all tied to one.
Mr. Carter. Is there a clear understanding of what the
Federal role should be in any kind of digital equity program?
Mr. O'Rielly. Well, I have to defer to those that are still
in the roles, but I don't know that I can exactly determine
where this money would go or how you would spend it. I worry
that it could be, you know, misused or could go to some really
suspect programs. We have done that in the--we had that in the
1990s. There were a couple different programs not exactly
called digital equity, but they connected a number of different
communities.
Some of it was wasted, and you know, some of it just didn't
go for what was intended. And so I think it was very--you know,
it can be vague, and I don't want to criticize the intent, but
I think that there is some--it certainly could be addressed.
Mr. Carter. And, you know, I have to say I believe it is
intentionally vague, just for that reason. You know, I am not
trying to question anyone's intentions here, but I do believe
that is the case. Don't you think that language like this,
could it potentially--the $1.3 billion digital equity program,
could it potentially prevent it from simply replacing the
Lifeline program or the Emergency Broadband Benefit program by
just subsidizing the cost of internet?
Mr. O'Rielly. Well, it could be a source for that purpose.
It can also do everything else that those programs don't do,
and you can have this big, huge package of services,
potentially. I don't know exactly what could go in the space at
the current moment.
I will tell you this, though. As a former regulator, as I
read it fairly broadly, and I can see where you can, you know,
basically spend the money anywhere you want to and make up an
argument for where the money should go. And that doesn't mean
it would be wasted, it just means that you could--you know,
when the Congress writes very broad language, it gives a
regulator broad authority to kind of interpret where it wants
to go. If it is just that is what the goal is, well, then, that
is the public policy decision being made.
Mr. Carter. Well, and that is what concerns me because I
feel like we defer too many times to the agencies and don't
make our intent clear. So that is why I am concerned about this
because I think it is extremely broad, and I think it leads to
what some people may interpret to be waste. And we need to be
more specific, and I just think that we are falling down on our
responsibilities as Members of Congress to do just such. So let
me ask you--go ahead.
Mr. O'Rielly. I fully support addressing affordability, and
I think there are ways to go about it, and Congress has looked
at some of that in a bipartisan way in the EBB program. I
couldn't agree with you more that the more specificity Congress
can provide, the better. And as to which way he wants to go,
even as a former--even if I disagree, it is irrelevant.
Congress has decided.
Make it as specific as you want to. That helps the agency.
It just is a decision you make, and the agency can bless it
rather than trying to guess what the interpretation should be
and going down roads that it wasn't supposed to go.
Mr. Carter. And I couldn't agree with you more. And I could
name numerous, numerous examples of where we have done just
such. So, listen. One last thing before my time's running out
here, but this act proposes a number of different concerning
changes for me such as redefining underserved areas. What do
these changes mean for satellite and fixed wireless
connections? And because of those changes, ultimately what do
they mean for consumer prices and competition?
Mr. O'Rielly. Well, I think, you know, as defined by people
who advocate for it, they want it to be fiber and to exclude
all other technologies. And so in terms of competition, there
necessarily wouldn't be--it will be either fiber or not. Maybe
in some places, there would be multiple fiber providers, but
really, you wouldn't see competition, and you would have to--
you know, and that would be--you know, then they would regulate
the rates and different things to try and keep the rates down
through government means.
Mr. Carter. Great. And that is all my time. Thank you all.
Thank all of you, and especially you, Mr. O'Rielly.
And I yield back.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
Next is Dr. Kim Schrier.
Ms. Schrier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our
witnesses. This is such an interesting discussion.
The LIFT Act highlights the need for electric vehicle
charging infrastructure in low-income neighborhoods, but we
also need to support the demand for those charging stations
with vehicle exchange programs for older, more polluting
vehicles and providing secondary market credits to make
electric vehicles more accessible. And I think it is important
to remember that right now about 60 percent of electric
vehicles are purchased by people with household incomes above
$150,000 and most Americans right now are not in the market for
a new car, so we have to drive down emissions everywhere,
especially in areas of disproportionate impact and public
health concerns. And we have to remember also that
electrification for many areas means transit, schoolbuses, even
reducing emissions from medium- and heavy-duty vehicles which
represent a quarter of emissions but only 7 percent of
vehicles.
So, Secretary Moniz, how can we better engage with
underserved communities? Given this understanding and given our
concerns about equity, how can we also incentivize the purchase
of electric vehicles, including used ones, so that people in
all income brackets have access?
Dr. Moniz. Well, thank you, Congresswoman Schrier. First of
all, I would like to point out that I think you put your finger
on a very important point, and that is a focus not only on the,
say, light-duty vehicles but on the fleets that are operating
in urban environments all the time. It would be very important,
and often that would certainly help some of the underserved
communities, particularly in these urban areas. And with the
reduction of battery costs, that has been very, very
substantial. As I have already said, on light-duty vehicles we
will be seeing--I think we have already seen cost parity in
terms of lifetime costs, but we will be seeing equivalence as
well in the capital costs within years. That also applies to
the kinds of fleet vehicles, especially because they have big
advantages in their charging infrastructures.
Now, in terms of the light-duty vehicles, first of all, you
are absolutely right that the turnover issue is an important
one. And the incentives that we have had so far for purchase of
EVs, to be perfectly blunt, has favored more well-off people
because up to now the capital cost has been higher. We need to
incentivize it. We may need to have other Cash for Clunkers
kind of programs, help with the turnover.
People driving less in COVID is going to extend the life of
the current vehicles. So I think you are right. Incentive
programs targeted more at the underserved communities would be
welcome, but then we have to be creative on the charging
infrastructure because the suburban model is not the one that
is going to work.
Ms. Schrier. That is right. And, of course, attention to
public transit. Thank you for talking about the delivery
vehicles. We have a bill for the U.S. Postal fleet. We have
heard about FedEx. I really appreciate those comments as well.
I am going to turn to Dr. Frieden really briefly here
because, again, in the context of underserved areas, I am
thinking about hospital deserts, even within urban areas, even
like in Washington, DC. This is sort of like grocery store
deserts, and as we think about the impacts of COVID-19, I am
concerned about how many hospital beds we have per capita in
this country compared with other nations, what that means for
underserved or unserved communities.
And so I was wondering, Dr. Frieden, if you could talk just
a little bit more about the importance of investing in the
physical infrastructure of the healthcare safety net and how
those communities could benefit from modernization and maybe
how that could impact health disparities.
Dr. Frieden. Well, first, there are clearly hospitals in
great need. Those include both rural hospitals and some
hospitals in central cities that don't have the kind of revenue
streams that others have. But unless we do a much better job at
prevention and public health, we will never be able to build
enough hospital beds. We have an aging population with more
morbidities like hypertension, diabetes, and we have to fix
primary care. We have to fix public health, and that is the
route to both a more productive and a healthier population.
Ms. Schrier. Thank you. As a primary care provider, I
appreciate those comments.
I yield back.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
Next is Congresswoman Trahan.
Mrs. Trahan. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the committee for convening
this important hearing. I really appreciate the witnesses' time
today, your depth of knowledge and insight.
You know, my district is home to the first community health
center sponsored residency in the Nation, Greater Lawrence
Family Health Center, which offers primary healthcare to more
than 62,000 patients in my district. Centers like these across
the country are doing double duty, responding to the COVID-19
pandemic while also training medical professionals who will go
on to serve the most vulnerable in our communities.
The pandemic highlighted the need for our country to
rethink and be creative about the way we provide healthcare,
especially to areas that serve high proportions of low-income
and minority patients, rural areas, and the areas that operate
Tribal or urban Indian health programs.
The LIFT America Act authorizes $500 million in grants to
support the improvement, renovation, or modernization of
infrastructure at teaching health centers and behavioral health
centers. These grants could mean state-of-the-art teaching
equipment, long-overdue building repairs, and even renovations
that expand capacity.
Dr. Frieden, can you speak to the importance of
infrastructure investments in qualified teaching health centers
and specifically how these investments could lead to a future
healthcare workforce prepared to care for historically
underserved populations?
Dr. Frieden. Well, the issue of graduate medical education
and funding of medical centers is a complicated one, to be
frank, and I think what we see is that many of these centers
perform a huge amount of service for populations that aren't
adequately served otherwise. And we don't have really a
sensible business model for that, a sensible way of paying and
assuring quality and continuity of care.
I was encouraged to see the mental health provision in that
because mental health is neglected, and it is really important.
If you look at disability, if you look at suffering, there is a
lot of mental healthcare that is needed and not obtained. There
is something in mental health, what is often called the rule of
halves. Only half of people are diagnosed. Only half of those
are adequately treated.
So support to our behavioral health colleagues is extremely
important. And for all of these, we have to strengthen primary
care, including primary care systems that work as teams and
have a mental health professional as either a virtual or a
present member of that team.
Mrs. Trahan. I really appreciate that. That was actually my
second question in terms of improving the infrastructure of
behavioral health centers and increasing access to treatment
for addiction, so I appreciate, I appreciate you tackling both
questions all at once. I am really excited that the LIFT Act
could mean that quality and access to healthcare in this
country will improve.
I think I have time to actually switch gears and ask
another question. I know it has been touched upon several times
in this, but my district is home to passionate entrepreneurs
that combine world-leading research from MIT and Boston
College, Secretary Moniz' alma mater. With the work ethic of
the Merrimack Valley, which is, you know, the start of the
industrial revolution, they are developing inputs to the green
economy, magnets for offshore wind, powders for batteries, and
new energy storage techniques.
But one challenge these innovators face is that, even when
their processes are more environmentally sustainable, they
struggle to build components at a price that is competitive
with overseas suppliers, and many times they struggle to even
source those inputs from the U.S.
So, Secretary Moniz, with my remaining time, in your
testimony you emphasized that, as the market for electric
vehicles increases, the global battery manufacturing capacity
and number of public chargers need to increase by an order of
magnitude. Beyond permiting, which is also something you
mentioned, can you describe other ways we can improve and
expand battery manufacturing in the U.S., including by
developing complementary policies that might incentivize
domestic battery manufacturing?
Dr. Moniz. Well, again, Congresswoman Trahan--by the way,
and I am from Fall River, not Lawrence, but anyway--as I
mentioned earlier, there are DOE programs that already have
been used and could be reenergized, if you like, to help with
battery manufacturing. But there are huge also supply chains
there, cathodes and anodes, et cetera, where I think the kind
of entrepreneurial activity that you are referring to will come
into play.
Now, I personally believe--and this is always tricky, but I
personally believe that we need to develop, without prejudging
the answers, but we do need to develop not necessarily a made-
in-America-only strategy but something that takes into account
the security of critical supply chains. And there is no doubt
that batteries, for example, are one of the areas that is
critical.
I think in my testimony it points out that today battery
manufacturing is only 10 percent in the United States. I mean,
China is the biggest market right now, but not by that kind of
a margin. And so it has been very welcome to see more
manufacturing coming into the United States, but we need more
of it.
Of course, creating the market is ultimately the answer.
And that is where, with the announcements of GM and Ford and
the history of Tesla, many new models coming into the market,
including foreign suppliers with U.S. manufacturing plants, if
you have got the market here, I mean, that really provides an
enormous incentive for the supply chain to be here as well.
Mrs. Trahan. Yes. I couldn't agree more. I know I am over
my time. I appreciate all of that. Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
Next we go to Robin Kelly, Congresswoman Kelly.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding this hearing, and I want to commend you for putting
together this legislation to make long-overdue investments in
our Nation's infrastructure. This holistic approach will allow
America to modernize our system and improve the delivery of
healthcare, energy, and the internet.
As we have all adjusted to online and remote work, we have
seen just how important connectivity is to education and
healthcare. Historically, as we know, rural and low-income
urban communities have lacked access to high-speed
connectivity. It is perhaps not surprising that companies have
invested the highest speed and more reliable networks in
wealthier communities, but this is where the Government can and
must step in. As more and more essential services are offered
primarily or wholly online, it only exacerbates the divides
that already exist in healthcare, education, and commerce.
Commissioner Wheeler, as companies build out the next-
generation high-speed networks, we cannot let these communities
that were left behind during the last upgrade be left behind
again. Are there provisions in the LIFT Act that will address
these disparities and ensure that they are not repeated?
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Ms. Kelly. That is a spot-on
question because what we need to be doing, and I think what the
LIFT Act is trying to do, is to focus on fiber so that you
build once and don't have to come back and rebuild later so
that some segments of society have to play catchup ball.
There is in my testimony a chart that shows the growth in
computing power, which is Moore's law, which we all are
familiar with, and the growth in fiber throughput called Keck's
law, which parallels it.
And so, if we want to talk--and the question was raised,
the statement was made a while ago about use the money wisely.
If we want to use it wisely, we ought to spend it as wisely as
the companies are spending their money, which is to build
fiber. Because once you have got fiber in the ground, then it
becomes a matter of the electronics at both ends and the
increasing throughput capability of fiber, and that is how you
keep up.
So your question is spot on, that it is possible with this
kind of an authorization based on the study that we did to have
every home in America wired with fiber to futureproof for
tomorrow and have no second-class service.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you. Last Congress, I introduced H.R.
2119, which amends the energy policy of 2005 to increase the
authorization for a grant program that was set up to provide
grants for States to improve the energy efficiency of public
buildings and facilities. That provision is included in the
LIFT America Act we are considering today. State and local
communities often lack the financial resources to undertake
large-scale efficiency retrofits for public buildings. This
grant program makes it easier for States to make these
investments, which in turn lowers the utility bills for the
community operating the building.
Mr. Secretary, do you agree that making our public
buildings more energy efficient is effective at improving our
energy structure? And is there a role for DOE to play in
supporting States and local communities who may lack the
resources to retrofit public buildings? Thank you.
Dr. Moniz. Yes. Absolutely, Congresswoman Kelly. We have
strongly advocated, in fact, as an example, a program where the
DOE could award, if there were the appropriations, of course,
energy efficiency upgrades to the hundreds of thousands of
public buildings at the State, county, and local level. This
would be--often, as I think you know, the funds are not there
without some help. This would be great for jobs. It is jobs
immediately. And, of course, we hope we are coming out of COVID
now, but still there is going to be some residual reluctance, I
think, in many families of having workers coming into the home.
We hope that is overcome soon. But that problem doesn't exist
for these public buildings, which often will have at least one
shift of the day, if not two. They are prime real estate for
efficiency upgrades, so that could be a very, very important
program.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you so much, and I yield back.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
Next we have Scott Peters. I don't know if he is available.
He was there. He was on before, but I--well, we can go to
Yvette Clarke and come back.
Congresswoman Clarke? She is on mute. I don't know if she
knows that we are asking for her.
Ms. Clarke. I am trying to unmute.
Mr. Pallone. OK. That is good. I can hear you.
Ms. Clarke. OK. Can you hear me now?
Mr. Pallone. Yep. Yes.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and let me
thank you and Ranking Member Rodgers for convening this very
important hearing on the committee's LIFT America
infrastructure proposal.
As our Nation battles with interrelated crises around
COVID-19, the economy, racial injustice, and climate change, I
believe we have a unique opportunity to meet the magnitude of
this moment with bold legislation that will finally lay the
groundwork for a 21st century America that prioritizes workers,
safeguards our climate, and addresses the deep racial and
economic injustices that have persisted in our Nation for far
too long.
I am excited about the fact that we recognize now that it
is time for us to turn the page on our 19th and 20th century
infrastructure and build a new infrastructure worthy of the
21st century. It is my hope that we can use this legislation as
a starting point to work with the administration and with our
colleagues in the Senate to create a forward-looking
infrastructure and recovery package that allows us to truly
build back better.
Secretary Moniz, you mentioned in your testimony how the
deployment of public EV charging stations will need to scale up
by orders of magnitude to meet the widespread adoption of
electric vehicles over the coming decade. And I agree with your
assessment, but I also think it is crucial that we keep equity
at the forefront of this conversation. History has shown us
that, unless we are intentional in our actions, the communities
who have the most to gain from new clean technology,
particularly in terms of environmental and public health
benefits, are often the last to receive the least investment.
So, Secretary Moniz, do you agree that we should also be
focused on equity and access as we look to increase the
deployment of EV charging infrastructure in communities across
our Nation?
Dr. Moniz. Absolutely, Congresswoman Clarke. As you said
very well, these are our communities where cleaning up the air
would have a particularly important effect in these
communities, so absolutely.
On the charging stations, it will take creativity, given
the patterns of multifamily units and the like, but that can be
managed. As we also discussed, there has to be incentives as
well for being able to introduce the vehicles and the delivery
vehicles, et cetera, in those areas.
Also, if I may comment--and this is a comment to you but
also to the chairman--that I really appreciate your emphasis on
a 21st century infrastructure. We have heard in this hearing a
lot about, you know, the EV charging infrastructure. We have
heard about the broadband. The reality is this is a bill
focused on going to where the puck is going to be, and that is
what you need to do on infrastructure. You build for 15 years
out or 20 years out. You don't build for tomorrow.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you. And I am so pleased to see that so
many major pieces of my Electric Vehicles for Underserved
Communities Act co-led by Congresswoman Barragan is included in
this infrastructure package. Not only does building back better
mean ensuring a strong focus on equity and justice, it also
means building back smarter, and that is something that I have
prioritized as cochair of the Smart Cities, Smart Communities
Caucus.
And I am also focusing on my Smart Cities, Smart
Communities Act with Congresswoman Suzan DelBene, which is part
of the LIFT America package. Our proposal would establish a
pilot program to generate partnerships between DOE, the
national laboratories, and communities seeking to leverage
smart cities technologies.
Secretary Moniz, do you agree that communities across
America could benefit from increased collaboration with DOE and
the national labs to better facilitate research, development,
and deployment of smart city technology?
Dr. Moniz. Yes, absolutely. And, in fact, we say in the
testimony that, when we think about smart cities or smart
communities, the real focus has to be on what we call the
backbone. The backbone is kind of coherently developing smart
electricity with telecom, linking it to big data analysis, AI,
and then the people of that city and the people who are
attracted to that city will exercise all kinds of
entrepreneurial juices to use that backbone. And, of course,
the DOE and the laboratories are steeped in those technologies.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this hearing, and I just
wanted to say to Dr. Frieden that I couldn't agree with you
more about the need for us to build out a 21st century public
health infrastructure. What we experienced here in New York
City as the outbreak epicenter of the pandemic, knowing that we
had one of the strongest public health infrastructures in the
Nation at one point in time and to see that we weren't
prepared, that we really had a flawed system, is a dear price
that we had to pay, and I hope that we'll look at the need for
a national public health infrastructure.
And thank you for all of the work that you all do. And I
yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Congresswoman.
Let's see. Several Members have come back. I think the next
one is Scott Peters.
Mr. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the irony
of having the internet difficulties during this hearing, but
thank you for holding it.
And as we have heard from Secretary Moniz today,
modernizing the energy infrastructure is a vast undertaking
that includes expanding and upgrading long-distance high-
voltage transmission systems, building out CO2
pipelines and calls for CO2 storage, scaling up
hydrogen technologies for use in transportation and power
generation, rolling out EV stations, decarbonizing natural gas
systems.
The LIFT Act and its companion, CLEAN Future Act, takes
significant steps to address these critical infrastructure
challenges and ratify that part of that discussion has been
based on the Power On Act that we drafted to develop an
interstate high-voltage macrogrid.
Secretary Moniz, you have discussed the concept of
collecting energy infrastructure around hubs. And I believe I
was actually talking this week about the concept with Peter Fox
Penner of Boston College, who I believe works with you. The
notion involves integrating the various energy systems.
The 2021 National Academy of Sciences report concluded that
building a national hydrogen pipeline network will play an
essential role in meeting a zero-emissions target by 2050. And
in appropriations we have supported for hydrogen--we provided
support for hydrogen pipeline research at DOE.
But could you explain a little bit more about how the
energy infrastructure hubs might work and how that might look
to lay people like us and specifically about colocating
hydrogen and CCUS hubs and how that might accelerate the
hydrogen economy?
Dr. Moniz. Yes. Thank you, Congressman Peters. Am I on
mute? No. I am OK.
In fact, let me start by saying that one of the studies we
did was specifically for California CCS. And what it showed
there, there were about three natural hubs in the State where
you could really focus on the infrastructure in those hubs
without having to worry about, at least, initially, you know, a
macro infrastructure cutting across everything.
And, of course, it is not only carbon dioxide. But if you
look at--like, one of those hubs involved, you know, the Long
Beach Port. And clearly using hydrogen in that port,
electrifying the port would be a tremendous step forward. So,
really, a comprehensive hub of that type.
As we looked around the country--and that was the figure in
the written testimony--looked around the country, we saw
similar kind of accumulations of large industrial activities
with the opportunities for sequestration, with the
opportunities for supplying hydrogen to those industrial
facilities, possibly to the power facilities, and utilizing to
the extent possible.
That is where, by the way, your support for research on
hydrogen pipelines is really important because the extent to
which you have perhaps pipeline structures that could employ at
different times, of course, CO2 and then hydrogen
could be a very, very efficient way of doing the infrastructure
evolution.
Mr. Peters. Do you have a sense that the bill before us
will adequately accommodate and promote the development of
energy infrastructure hubs as you imagine, or should we make
changes and amendments to it?
Dr. Moniz. I think it could be strengthened. I think it is
an important organizational concept. And as I said earlier, one
way would be also to focus on a Federal program to, in some
cost-shared way, develop two or three, at least, of these
regional hubs, certainly in this decade.
And that would--you know, doing by--I mean, doing by
example would be a tremendous way for the committee and the
Congress to get this kicked off.
Mr. Peters. We would like to follow up with you and your
organization offline to sort of come up with ideas we can offer
up to the committee.
I also want to comment, real quickly, on methane emission
strategy. The EU commission wants to review, obtain substantial
reductions by 2030. And it is interesting that the French
Government blocked a domestic company from signing a $7 billion
contract for liquid--LNG from a facility in Brownsville, Texas,
because U.S. natural gas was too dirty.
So there is an economic incentive to deal with this. Could
you elaborate on what kind of future policy and regulations you
have in mind for managing emissions from a natural gas system?
Mr. Moniz. Well, first of all, I think the industry has got
to be full in on getting methane reduced, but there are also
new technologies. For example, you can do electric drilling.
That is being advanced. So we think--for example, on LNG
specifically--and I was part of a project that was looking at
the architecture--we think that you could do a net-zero LNG
facility from wellhead to dock, for example, you know. These
are the kinds of initiatives that we need.
The LNG exports, I think, remain very critical for our
allies, and so I think going domestically to net zero would be
a very, very good move.
Mr. Peters. Well, we will look forward to discussing that
more with you. My time has expired.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
Next we have Congressman Bobby Rush.
Mr. Rush. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and hello to our
witnesses. Good to see you all again. Dr. Moniz, Dr. Frieden,
Commissioner O'Reilly, and Commissioner Wheeler, it is
certainly good to see you all again. And you all have really
passed the durability test for today, and I want to thank you
so much for your fine testimony.
Last week, in a shocking analysis, the Chicago Tribune
recently found--and I quote--that ``more than 8 of every 10
Illinoians live in a community where brain-damaging lead was
found in the tap water of at least one home during the past 6
years,'' end of quote. The analysis also found that Illinois
has more service lines made of toxic metal than any other
State.
Mr. Chairman, I ask for unanimous consent to insert an
article from the Chicago Tribune explaining their analysis into
the record.
Mr. Pallone. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Rush. Fortunately, the LIFT Act includes $4.5 million
for lead service line replacement, with a priority on
environmental communities.
Dr. Frieden, can you speak to the reason why replacing
these pipes should be a top priority for public health and
safety?
Dr. Frieden. Thank you very much, Congressman, and thanks
for raising the issue.
Lead poisoning remains a significant problem, not just for
kids but also for adults. There is growing evidence that it
increases blood pressure and has other health effects among
adults. It is a toxic chemical, and we want to get it out of
our environment. That is going to take work. Water is one of
the sources. Had we done a better job of controlling lead
paint, what we are seeing is the residual sources are showing
up, and that includes lead service lines.
Lead service lines and lead poisoning have long-term
negative consequences on a child's development, and the
modelling studies suggest that those consequences have very
large economic and educational impacts in terms of the
productive capacity of that individual, the societal costs that
they will contribute to or require in their lives.
So eliminating lead poisoning is not only an inspiring goal
but it is possible, and efforts to do that by addressing all of
the sources, including water, are important.
Mr. Rush. Thank you.
Secretary Moniz, today's legislation also invests over $100
million in clean energy, energy efficiency, clean ports, smart
communities and electric vehicles. Investments of this
magnitude and in these areas support our role of creating a
cleaner economy with high-quality, good-paying jobs.
Secretary Moniz, during the recent pandemic, the U.S.
Energy sector established the USEER report, and I want to thank
you for energy-fueling initiatives for this USEER report.
Considering your work, sir, will you please describe the
current state of the energy and job market and how investment
of this variety will support job creation?
Mr. Moniz. Thank you, Congressman Rush. It is great to see
you again.
First of all, in doing five annual energy employment
reports pre-COVID, a very important result is that we found
that job growth in the energy sector was double the pace of job
growth in the economy as a whole.
So clearly there is a high leverage here in clean energy to
also try to dig ourselves out of the jobs hole that we still
have from the COVID period. Unfortunately, we don't yet have
the data for 2020, and I am hoping that the new administration
is now going to get that project going because, frankly, let's
say it fell through the cracks in the last administration, but
getting a rebaselining for 2020 when we had the COVID impact
will be very, very important.
And looking at the patterns of who lost jobs, where jobs
were lost. For example, in energy efficiency, we know that 3
years' worth of job loss--of job gains, excuse me--were lost in
that one year. So I am hoping that that exercise will happen
very, very soon to collect the data from 2020.
Mr. Rush. Thank you.
Mr. Moniz. And, by the way, the Congress has spoken clearly
in terms of appropriating funds to the DOE specifically to
execute that job.
Mr. Rush. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Bobby.
And I think last, but not least certainly, is Kathy Castor.
Ms. Castor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am excited that I
can bat cleanup today, and I want to thank our witnesses for
the quality time that you all have spent with the committee
today.
It has been heartening to hear all of our colleagues bring
forth their ideas to help lift America and create jobs, and it
is clear that the LIFT America package will really help us
build back better and create those good-paying, family-
sustaining jobs that we are going to need as we move out of
COVID.
Dr. Frieden, it is really good to see you again. We thank
you for your leadership. It is clear we have got to rebuild our
public health workforce, infrastructure, data systems, and I
appreciate your endorsement of this, of the ideas in this
legislation.
But I want to focus with Secretary Moniz here on the clean
energy future because more and more American families and
businesses, consumers, they are demanding clean energy. They
know that it is cheaper. They want the modern tools of energy
efficiency to help them lower their electric bills.
In fact, there was a recent analysis by Vibrant Clean
Energy that found that a clean electric grid with expanded
distributed solar and storage is $88 billion less expensive
than business as usual.
If we just kept doing what we are doing, didn't make any
changes, if we invest in clean energy, $88 billion in benefits,
and that is just one of a whole bunch of reports that have
informed what is happening here in the LIFT America Act,
including the big report last year out of the House Democrats,
the Solving of Climate Crisis Report, and I want to thank
Chairman Pallone for incorporating a lot of our recommendations
into this bill.
But, Secretary Moniz, we have discussed everything today--
the grid enhancing technologies, the distributed solar power,
how we advance ports--but let's talk about the jobs, the
opportunities for good-paying--a lot of good jobs, union jobs
with fair labor standards.
This appears that we have an enormous opportunity here all
across the country to create all sorts of different jobs. Tell
me what really excites you when you think about our clean
energy future and helping tackle climate change in the jobs
piece.
Mr. Moniz. Well, thank you, Congresswoman Castor, and thank
you for your heroic effort last year on that massive report
that you also led.
With regard to the jobs--well, first of all, as I have said
a couple of times, we at EFI are partnering with the AFL-CIO,
and one reason for doing that is that--well, first of all, I
have been working with them for a long time, and at the
Department of Energy we established a strong jobs program.
But also, frankly, I have said many times that if we do not
address the issue of jobs and communities, we will have
headwinds in making our climate progress. So it is important
for that reason as well.
Secondly, with the AFL-CIO, we have written out 10 areas
for a clean energy future where we think there are massive
opportunities for creating good, high-paying jobs. I mentioned
earlier offshore wind was one of those, carbon capture and
sequestration, infrastructure. Those were our top three. So
this LIFT America Act fits right in there, and labor is very,
very excited about this.
Third, there are--one area, you mentioned solar, for
example. Just to say that in solar what we have found is that
there are about a quarter million jobs today--or I am sorry, in
2019, the last data that we have, in 2019--and an additional
100,000 jobs for those who work at solar less than half the
time. Typically in the construction business, where they would
spend some time, say, mounting photovoltaic panels, but less
than 50 percent of the time--if you add them, 350,000.
There has also been a lot of confusion in terms of wages.
The wages for those jobs are substantially above the median
wage in the country. And, you know, if one compares it to
something like nuclear jobs, well, of course, nuclear jobs are
double the median wage because of very, very high safety
standards and high training requirements, et cetera.
So these are good jobs. They pre-COVID were being created
at double the rate in the economy as a whole. As we are still
10 million jobs down, this is a high leverage situation where
the LIFT Act, LIFT America Act can come in to get the clean
energy future and create jobs at a really good clip.
Ms. Castor. Thanks so much.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Kathy.
Let me thank our witnesses. I am looking at the clock, they
have been over here 5 hours, believe it or not, taking our
questions and listening to us. So thank you for your
participation and your willingness to stay here for over 5
hours. We certainly appreciate that.
And I want to remind Members that, pursuant to committee
rules, they have 10 business days to submit additional
questions for the record to be answered by the witnesses. So
you may get written questions from us as well, in addition to
the 5 hours in person. And, of course, I would ask you to get
to us as promptly as well.
Before we adjourn, I do have to go through a list of items
to include in the record. So I request unanimous consent to
offer the following documents into the record: A letter from
the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies; a letter from
the Coalition for Health Funding; a letter from the National
Association of Community Health Centers; an article from the
Chicago Tribune entitled ``Brain-damaging lead found in tap
water from most Illinois communities during the past 6 years,
Tribune analysis finds;'' a letter from the World Resources
Institute; a letter in support of the LIFT America Next
Generation 9-1-1 provisions from the International Association
of Fire Chiefs, Major Cities Chiefs Association, Major County
Sheriffs of America, National Sheriff's Association, National
Association of State EMS Officials, International Association
of Chiefs of Police, Metropolitan Fire Chiefs Association, and
the Association of Public Safety Communications Officials; a
letter from America's Essential Hospitals; a letter from U.S.
Telecom, the Broadband Association; a letter from the
Environmental Defense Fund; a letter from the American Nurses
Association; a letter from the American Clinic for Laboratories
Association; a letter from the National Association of State
911 Administrators and the National Emergency Numbers
Association; a letter from the American Gas Association; a
letter from U.S. Senators Michael Bennett, Angus King, Rob
Portman, and Joe Manchin; and, finally, a letter from the GPS
Innovation Alliance and the CompTIA Space Enterprise.
So without objection, those will be submitted for the
record, and they will be so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Pallone. So at this time let me just thank everyone
again, all of our panel, all of our Members. I thought this was
a very good hearing. I was rather surprised that we were here
for 5 hours. It seemed a lot shorter to me because it was so
interesting.
But with that, we will thank you again, and at this time
the committee is adjourned--oh, did someone have a question?
Mr. Moniz. No. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pallone. All right. Thank you, all. Thank you so much.
Do we have something else? Morgan, yes.
Mr. Griffith. Apparently we have a Member who is trying to
get in, log in. I don't know if he is going to make it or not.
Mr. Pallone. Who is that?
Mr. Griffith. He is having technical difficulties.
Markwayne Mullin.
Mr. Pallone. Is he trying to get in or----
Mr. Griffith. What have you got? What is he trying to do?
Mr. Pallone. I don't want to hold up the witnesses any
longer. They have been here for 5 hours.
Mr. Griffith. How long has he been trying to log in?
Yes, apparently he is trying to log in, Mr. Chairman, but I
can't tell you how long it will take----
Mr. Pallone. Yes. We kept them here for 5 hours. If he
wants to, he can submit a written request.
All right. Thank you, all.
At this time the committee is adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 4:13 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]